GANESH MRICHANDE vs SMT. NILESHWARI

1

CGHC010178212024 2026:CGHC:45665-DB
NAFR
ASHOK
SAHU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ASHOK
SAHU
Date:
2026.11.03
15:51:19 +0530
FA(MAT) No. 166 of 2024
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 passed in Civil Suit
No.06-A/2023 by the Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli}
Ganesh Mrichande, S/o. Kapil Das Mrichande, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o. Village Hardi, Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.) At Present R/o.
New Police Line, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
Smt. Nileshwari, W/o. Ganesh Mrichande, Aged About 35 Years, R/o.
New Police Line, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) At Present R/o. Lilwakapa,
Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
Division Bench: -
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu and
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, JJ.

2
Judgment On Board
(28/10/2026)
Sushma Sawant, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/plaintiff husband
Ganesh Mrichande has preferred this appeal challenging the
judgment & decree dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Judge, Family
Court, Mungeli in Civil Suit No.06-A/2023 (Ganesh
Mrichande v. Smt. Nileshwari) , by which his application for
grant of decree of divorce against respondent/defendant wife Smt.
Nileshwari , has been rejected finding no merit.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual
backdrop: -
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as
per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the
Family Court.)
Factual Matrix
-:Admitted facts:-
3. It is undisputed fact and admitted on record that the marriage of the
appellant/plaintiff husband Ganesh Mrichande with the
respondent/ defendant wife Smt. Nileshwari was solemnized
on May, 2007 at Village- Lilwakapa, District Mungeli, in
accordance with Hindu rites and customs.

3
-:Case of the Appellant/Plaintiff Husband before the Family
Court:-
4. The case of the appellant/plaintiff husband Ganesh
Mrichande , in brief, was that at the time of marriage, the appellant
was serving in the Police Department as a Constable (Driver). When
the respondent/defendant wife expressed her desire to pursue
further studies, he borne the expenses of the respondent's education
up to B.A. and P.G.D.C.A. It was further pleaded that, after obtaining
higher education, she began refusing to perform household chores,
underwent an abortion without his consent, starting going out
wearing fashionable clothes and threatened to implicate him in false
cases when he tried to persuade her to attend to household
responsibilities. He further pleaded that the respondent/defendant-
wife without informing him, would frequently leave the matrimonial
home and go to her parental house and she had been living
separately from him for approximately two years. He further pleaded
that, despite his efforts to bring her back and resume matrimonial
life, the respondent refused to return to the matrimonial home. On
these allegations, the appellant sought dissolution of the marriage by
a decree of divorce.
-:Written Statement of Respondent/Defendant- Wife before
the Family Court:-
5. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant wife Smt.
Nileshwari contested the suit by filing her written statement and

4
denied the allegations levelled against her. She contended that,
shortly after the marriage, the appellant began subjecting her to
physical and mental cruelty over trivial matters. She further alleged
that the appellant used to beat her, threaten to kill her and, on one
occasion, stopped speaking to her for approximately one and a half
months. The respondent/defendant-wife pleaded that on 24.04.2019,
while quarreling, the appellant/plaintiff-husband took her to her
parental house at village, Lilawakapa, and left her there. She further
averred that she was willing to reside with the appellant/plaintiff-
husband and resume their matrimonial life, however, the
appellant/plaintiff-husband subjected her to physical and mental
cruelty and drove her out of the matrimonial home. On these
grounds, the respondent/defendant-wife prayed for dismissal of the
application filed by the appellant/plaintiff-husband seeking a decree
of divorce.
-: Proceedings before the learned Family Court :-
6. The Family Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
available on record, framed following issues and answered the issues
as under:-
.

क्र
वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष
1.

क्याविवाहकेअनुष्ठापनकेपश्चातअनावेदिका
" "
प्रमाणितनहीं
, ?
ने आवेदककेप्रतिक्रूरताकारितकिया

5
2.
, -
क्याआवेदक अनावेदिकाकेविरूद्धविवाह
“ "
नहीं
?
विच्छेदकीडिकीप्राप्तकरनेकाहकदारहै
3.
? " 26
अन्यसहायताएवंव्यय आवेदननिरस्तकंडिका के
"
आदेशानुसार
-:Details of evidence and documents available before the
Family Court:-
-:Evidence led by the Appellant/Pl aintiff- Ganesh
Mrichande :-
7. Before the Family Court, the appellant/plaintiff- husband examined
himself Ganesh Mrichande (A.W.-1) and also examined Naresh
Kumar (A.W.-.2) and Narendra Dhritlahre (A.W.-3) as witnesses
in support of his pleadings. The appellant/plaintiff husband has
exhibited the documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 .
Evidence led by the Respondent/Defendant- Smt.
Nileshwari :-
8. The respondent/defendant-wife herself Smt. Nileshwari examined as
(N.A.W.-1) and also examined Padan Kumar (N.A.W.-2) . The
respondent/defendant- wife has produced documents Ex.N.A.-1 to
Ex.N.A.-13 in support of her case.
-:Judgment of the trial Court:-
9. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Family Court, by its
judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 , dismissed the

6
appellant/plaintiff’s suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:-
(i) That, the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2024 is perverse,
illegal, erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as evidence available on record, therefore, it is liable to
be quashed to the extent of rejecting prayer for decree of divorce.
(ii). That, while examining himself, the appellant has reiterated the
plaint allegations and has made categorical statement that the
respondent subjected him to cruelty.
(iii) That, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent has deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause
and deprived him from conjugal relationship since more than 4
years.
(iv) That, during pendency of divorce petition, the learned Family
Court conducted counseling between the appellant and respondent
and during course of counseling, the appellant was agreed to take
back the respondent, but the respondent has refused to live with the
appellant.
(v) That, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent was torturing the appellant both mentally and physically.
(vi) That, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the
appellant and respondent are living separately since long and there is

7
no physical relation between them since long, therefore, the decree of
divorce ought to have been given in favour of the appellant.
(vii) That, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that
there is no cohabitation between the parties, as the respondent has
deserted the appellant and living separately without any reasonable
cause, therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have granted
decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.
(viii) That, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the
appellant has made efforts to his level best, but the respondent did
not return into his house.
(ix) That, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the
respondent has prosecuted the appellant and his family members in
false case.
(x) That, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that there is
no chance of reconciliation between the appellant and the respondent
and only after resorting to all choices and making all efforts, the
appellant had filed the application for grant of divorce.
(xi) That, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the
appellant is continuously being harassed, tortured and subjected to
cruelty by the respondent.

8
-:Proceedings before the Appellate Court:-
10. Both the parties were heard on this appeal. The evidence and
documents available in the record of the trial Court have been
perused.
-:Questions to be considered in this Appeal:-
11. In order to dispose of this First Appeal, the following questions are to
be considered:-
(i) Whether the Family Court is justified in rejecting the
application filed by the Appellant/plaintiff Husband for
grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and
desertion ?
(ii) Whether the Appellant/plaintiff husband is entitled for
decree of divorce as claimed?
-:Argument of the Appellant/Plaintiff- Husband Ganesh
Mrichande:-
12. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff husband submits that the
learned Family Court has erred in dismissing the petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without properly
appreciating the pleadings and evidence adduced by the appellant/
plaintiff husband. He further submits that the testimonies of the
appellant/plaintiff husband (A.W.-1) and witnesses Naresh Kumar
(A.W.-2) and Narendra Dhritlahre (A.W.-3) are consistent with the

9
pleadings and establishes the alleged cruelty committed by the
respondent/defendant wife.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff-husband also relied upon
the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar
Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, V. Bhagat v. D.
Bhagat (Mrs.) (1994)1 SCC 337 and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu
Kohli (2006)4 SCC 5588 regarding the determination of
“cruelty” in matrimonial proceeding. Accordingly, he prays that the
impugned judgment dated 30.04.2024 be set aside and the appeal be
allowed.
-: Argument of the Respondent /Defendant-
Smt. Nileshwari:-
14. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant wife submits that
the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the
pleadings and evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the petition
for divorce, as the appellant/plaintiff husband failed to establish the
grounds of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal
of the appeal.
-:Analysis of the Appellate Court:-
Points for determination No (i) and (ii).
15. To avoid repetition of the evidence, both the questions are taken up
together for consideration.

10
16. The appellant/plaintiff husband has instituted the proceeding on the
ground of “cruelty” . Accordingly, it would be appropriate to refer
the relevant provision of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, which reads as follows :-
“ 13 Divorce. --(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a
petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be
dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the
other party--
(i) xxx…..xxx…... xxx…...
(i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated
the petitioner with cruelty ”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, having considered the principles laid
down in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Naveen
Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 , elaborated upon the
concept of “mental cruelty” in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh,
(2007) 4 SCC 511 . In paragraph 101 of the said judgment, the
Supreme Court enumerated certain illustrative instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant in determining whether a case of
mental cruelty is made out. The relevant observations made therein
are reproduced as under:
“ 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet it
is deemed appropriate to enumerate some instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental

11
cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are
only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would
not make possible for the parties to live with each other
could come within the broad parameters of mental
cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimo-
nial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that
situation is such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to
cruelty; but frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse
caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to
mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one
spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of
the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the
resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave,
substantial and weighty.

12
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal standard
of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or
deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness
and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a
ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day to day life
would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a
few isolated instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for
a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer,
may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilization without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife
undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason
or without the consent or knowledge of her husband,
such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

13
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may
amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the
matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows
scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of V.Bhagat v. D.
Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994) 1 SCC 337, held in paragraph 16 as under :
“ 16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)( i-a ) can broadly be
defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party
such mental pain and suffering as would make it not
possible for that party to live with the other. In other
words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the
parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The
situation must be such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to
prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to
the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such
conclusion, regard must be had to the social status,
educational level of the parties, the society they move in,
the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living

14
together in case they are already living apart and all other
relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither
possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is
cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another
case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having
regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a
case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be
had to the context in which they were made.”
19. Similarly, in the matter of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006)
4 SCC 558 , while explaining the concept of cruelty in matrimonial
relations, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 51 and
52 that cruelty has to be understood in its ordinary sense and that
even unintentional but inexcusable conduct may constitute cruelty.
The Court further held that cruelty must be distinguished from the
ordinary wear and tear of family life and cannot be determined
merely on the basis of the sensitivity of the complaining spouse. The
nature, gravity and cumulative effect of the conduct complained of
have to be assessed in the context of the matrimonial relationship.
Para 51 & 52 reads as under :
“ 51. The word “cruelty” has to be understood in the
ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the
intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the
nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty
could be easily established. But the absence of intention
should not make any difference in the case. There may be
instances of cruelty by unintentional but inexcusable
conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result
from the cultural conflict between the parties. Mental

15
cruelty can be caused by a party when the other spouse
levels an allegation that the petitioner is a mental patient,
or that he requires expert psychological treatment to
restore his mental health, that he is suffering from
paranoid disorder and mental hallucinations, and to
crown it all, to allege that he and all the members of his
family are a bunch of lunatics. The allegation that
members of the petitioner's family are lunatics and that a
streak of insanity runs through his entire family is also an
act of mental cruelty.
52. This Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra
Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73] stated that mental cruelty is the
conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or
fear to the matrimonial life of the other. “Cruelty”,
therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with
such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his
or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the
petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however,
has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of
family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the
sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the
basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be
dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.
20. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial
precedents, it would now be appropriate to examine the facts and
evidence available on record to determine whether the conduct of the
respondent/wife amounts to mental cruelty. A perusal of the
documents exhibited by the appellant/plaintiff as Ex.N.-1 to Ex.N.-
6 and by the respondent/defendant as Ex.N.A.-1 to Ex.N.A.-13

16
indicates that both parties had been making complaints against each
other before the Police Station as well as the Superintendent of
Police. Proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C . were also
initiated, wherein an order for maintenance was passed. Further, on
the basis of a report lodged by the respondent/defendant, a criminal
case bearing Crime No.46/2020 was registered at Police Station
Kawardha , in which the appellant/plaintiff though was acquitted
u/s. 498-A of I.P.C. but was convicted u/s. 323 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment Till Rising Court and pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-. Thus, the aforesaid material does indicate that
disputes and differences existed between the parties and their
matrimonial relationship was not cordial.
21. However, the mere existence of such disputes, complaints and legal
proceedings, by itself, would not be sufficient to establish mental
cruelty. The specific allegations made by the appellant/plaintiff in his
oral evidence, as well as the evidence adduced in support thereof,
therefore, require consideration.
22. The appellant/plaintiff Ganesh Mrichande (A.W.-1) , his brother
Naresh (A.W.-2) and his brother-in-law Narendra (A.W.-3)
have mainly alleged that, after becoming educated, the respondent/
defendant became wayward, started refusing to perform household
work, got her hair cut and adopted a particular hairstyle, and
began wearing fashionable clothes. However, the respondent/
defendant Nileshwari (N.A.W.-1) and her father Padam Kumar
(N.A.W.-2) have denied these allegations.

17
23. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, the version of the
respondent/defendant appears more worthy of acceptance than that
of the appellant/plaintiff. The very nature of the allegations indicates
that the appellant/plaintiff was objecting to the respondent's
hairstyle, choice of clothes and manner of dressing. It appears that
differences arose between the parties on these issues, which
eventually led to their living separately. In the circumstances, the
conduct attributed to the respondent/defendant does not appear to
be such as would constitute mental cruelty. Rather, the
appellant/plaintiff appears to have been more responsible for
aggravating the differences between the parties. It is also relevant
that, in the criminal proceedings arising out of the incident of assault
upon the respondent/defendant, the appellant/plaintiff was
convicted.
24. Another important aspect of the matter is that the learned Family
Court also considered the possibility of the parties resuming their
matrimonial relationship. In the concluding paragraphs of his cross-
examination, the appellant/plaintiff himself stated that he was ready
to take the respondent/defendant back and live with her. Thus, no
error or infirmity is found in the conclusion drawn by the learned
Family Court in this regard.
25. Although it has been contended that, at present, there is no
possibility of the parties living together, the Court is required to
examine the evidence available on record within the parameters of

18
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. A decision
independently taken by the parties that they can no longer reside
together cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of cruelty. Even the
appellant/plaintiff's own witness, Narendra (A.W.-3) , has referred
to quarrels and differences “Nok Jhonk” between the parties.
26. However, upon consideration of the entire evidence, there is no
material on record to establish that the conduct of the
respondent/defendant towards the appellant/plaintiff was of such a
nature or degree as to constitute mental cruelty within the meaning
explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh (supra) , or that it rendered it unreasonable to expect the
appellant/plaintiff to continue the matrimonial relationship.
Consequently, the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act is not established.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
appellant/plaintiff husband Ganesh Mrichande has failed to
establish the ground of “cruelty” pleaded by him. The learned Family
Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record, and no
illegality or perversity is found in its conclusion warranting
interference by this Court.
-:Final Conclusion:-
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
appellant/plaintiff husband Ganesh Mrichande has failed to

19
establish the ground of “cruelty” as contemplated under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
29. The learned Family Court has properly appreciated the pleadings and
evidence on record, and the impugned judgment and decree do not
suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this
Court. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed .
30. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family
Court are affirmed. The appellant/plaintiff husband shall bear the
costs of the appeal. A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
Judge Judge

Ashok