VINAY KUMAR PATLE vs SMT. POOJA PATLE

1 / 19


CGHC010175082024 2026:CGHC:45900-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 162 of 2024
Vinay Kumar Patle S/o Amritlal Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Village-
Gadhola, Tahsil And Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
Smt. Pooja Patle W/o Shri Vinay Kumar Patle Aged About 27 Years At
Present R/o Village Bhaison, Tahsil And Police Station- Pamgarh, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu &
n'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant Ho
Judgment on Board
29/10/2026
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed
against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 passed by learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa
in Civil Case No.142-A/2022 whereby application preferred by
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.11.05
10:59:21
+0530

2 / 19
appellant/applicant (husband) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (for short, "the Act of 1955"), seeking dissolution of marriage by a
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been
dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the
appellant/applicant (husband) filed an application under Sections 13 of the
Act of 1955, before the Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa,
seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/non-applicant
(wife) on the pleadings inter alia that the marriage between the appellant
(applicant) and the respondent (non-applicant) was solemnized on
06.05.2017 at Village- Bhaison, Tehsil Pamgarh, in accordance with Hindu
rites and rituals. After the marriage, respondent-wife resided with the
appellant-husband at her matrimonial home and their relationship
remained cordial for approximately six months. A son, aged about two
years was born out of the said wedlock. It was further pleaded by the
appellant/applicant that the respondent/non-applicant persistently
pressurized him to live separately from his parents and other family
members. Consequently, approximately six months after the marriage,
appellant/applicant acceded to her demand and started residing
separately from his parents along with the respondent/non-applicant.
However, despite fulfilling her demand, respondent/non-applicant
continued to subject the appellant/applicant to cruelty. It was further
alleged that on 04.12.2018, respondent/non-applicant of her own volition,
left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. At the time
of leaving, she allegedly took with her a sum of approximately
Rs.1,50,000/-, along with jewellery, ornaments and other miscellaneous

3 / 19
articles from the appellant's household. The applicant further pleaded that
a criminal case was registered against him and his other family members
under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC at Police Station Janjgir. The said
case was presented before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Janjgir, on 02.08.2019 and is stated to be pending adjudication. The
respondent also instituted proceedings against the appellant, his parents
and siblings under the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class. It was further averred by the applicant that he, along with his
family members, made several efforts through social intervention and
other means to persuade the respondent/non-applicant to return to the
matrimonial home and resume cohabitation. However, respondent/non-
applicant categorically refused to reside with the appellant/applicant. In
this regard, proceedings were also initiated before the Family Counselling
Centre, Janjgir, wherein counselling was conducted on 23.03.2019 in
Case No. 476/18. However, the respondent/wife remained unwilling to
resume matrimonial life with the appellant, and consequently, the
proceedings were closed at the Counselling Centre. On the basis of the
aforesaid pleadings and allegations, appellant/applicant sought a decree
of divorce against the respondent/non-applicant.
3. In her written statement respondent/non-applicant (wife) has denied all
the facts pleaded in the application filed by the applicant and further stated
that a few months after the marriage, non-applicant discovered that the
applicant was having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law, after which
the applicant began harassing her. At that time, non-applicant was
pregnant, and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law mixed soda in her milk,

4 / 19
causing her two-month-old pregnancy to abort. When the non-applicant
became pregnant again, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law attempted to abort. However, they were
unsuccessful, and nine months after the pregnancy, a son was born, who
is currently with the non-applicant. Non-applicant's father gave
Rs.10,00,000/- as a dowry at the time of the marriage and provided goods
as per his means. Despite that, he used to demand a four-wheeler and
cash from the non-applicant and got the non-applicant harassed by
beating her. On 04.12.2018, applicant assaulted non-applicant.
Subsequently, on 05.12.2018, Janjgir police station registered a case
under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC, and the case is pending in the Court of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir. Since then, non-applicant has
resided at her maternal home. Therefore, the application filed by the
applicant (husband) be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, learned Family
Court framed following issues for determination:
“1. Whether the defendant/non-applicant subjected
the plaintiff/applicant to physical and mental
cruelty?
2. Whether the defendant/non-applicant deserted
the plaintiff/applicant for a period of two years prior
to filing of the divorce petition? ”
5. Learned Family Court upon appreciation of pleadings and oral as well
as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, answered the aforesaid
issues in negative and held that the applicant/plaintiff failed to prove the
allegation of cruelty against the non-applicant/defendant. Consequently,

5 / 19
application filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 was dismissed by the
impugned judgment, which is challenged by appellant/applicant (husband)
in the present appeal.
6. Assailing legality, validity, and correctness of the impugned judgment
and decree, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant (husband) would
submit that learned Family Court has committed an error in dismissing the
appellant's claim for divorce without properly appreciating the evidence
available on record, particularly the evidence establishing mental cruelty
meted out to the appellant by the respondent/wife. Learned counsel
further contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that
the respondent/wife had been residing separately from the appellant for
approximately five years, thereby depriving the appellant of marital
companionship and conjugal relations, which had caused him mental
agony and suffering. It was further submitted that the respondent/wife had
levelled unfounded and baseless allegations against the appellant
regarding his alleged extramarital relationship with the wife of his younger
brother. Such scandalous allegations, having been made without any
cogent basis or supporting evidence, caused grave mental cruelty to the
appellant, but the learned Family Court failed to consider this material
aspect while deciding the matter. Learned counsel also submitted that the
respondent/wife had lodged an FIR against the appellant and his family
members, making false and baseless allegations, pursuant to which a
criminal case was registered and charges under Sections 498-A/34 of the
Indian Penal Code were framed against them. However, after a full-
fledged trial, the appellant and the other accused persons were acquitted
of the charges under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC vide judgment dated

6 / 19
20.02.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 1114/2019. It was further
contended that respondent/wife had also instituted proceedings against
the appellant and his family members under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the year 2023, which was subsequently
dismissed. Learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent/wife
had filed an application seeking maintenance, registered as Case No.
212/2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2025, whereby
her claim for maintenance was rejected, while maintenance was granted
only in respect of the minor child. On the basis of the aforesaid
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
respondent/wife, by initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant
and his family members on false and unfounded allegations, had
subjected the appellant to mental cruelty. It was argued that the
cumulative effect of the aforesaid conduct, particularly the unfounded
allegations of an extramarital relationship and the initiation of criminal
proceedings, clearly established mental cruelty within the meaning of
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the learned
Family Court failed to appreciate these material circumstances in their
proper perspective, thereby rendering the impugned judgment
unsustainable in law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for
the appellant placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC
511 and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would
support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family
Court and submit that the learned Family Court, after proper appreciation

7 / 19
of the pleadings and evidence available on record, has rightly dismissed
the application preferred by the appellant/husband, as he had failed to
establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion as contemplated under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel would
further submit that the appellant has approached the Court with
unsubstantiated and false allegations against the respondent/wife,
whereas the respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty at
the matrimonial home. It was further contended that the appellant has
failed to establish that the respondent had deserted him without
reasonable cause and against his wishes for a continuous period of not
less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce
petition. Mere fact that the respondent initiated criminal proceedings and
other legal proceedings against the appellant and his family members for
the redressal of her grievances cannot, by itself, constitute mental cruelty.
The respondent was constrained to approach the competent authorities
and seek legal remedies in view of the harassment and cruelty suffered by
her. The appellant cannot claim a decree of divorce merely on the basis of
allegations and counter-allegations exchanged between the parties,
particularly when the respondent had disclosed the circumstances which
compelled her to raise such allegations. Therefore, this appeal be
dismissed and impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned
Family Court be affirmed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also
perused the records of the Court Family Court.
9.
Appellant/applicant (husband) has challenged the impugned
judgment and decree whereby learned Family Court dismissed the

8 / 19
application filed by him under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking
decree of divorce against respondent/non-applicant (wife) on the ground
of cruelty and desertion. The factum of marriage is not in dispute. It is an
admitted position that the marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 06.05.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.
10. Section 13 of the Act of 1955 provides for grant of decree of divorce
in certain cases. It enacts that any marriage solemnized whether before
or after the commencement of the Act may be dissolved on a petition
presented either by the husband or by the wife on any of the grounds
specified therein. Clause (i-a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 envisages
that a decree of divorce may be passed by a Court on the ground that
after solemnization of marriage, opposite party has treated the petitioner
with cruelty. Expression ‘cruelty’ includes both (i) physical cruelty; and (ii)
mental cruelty. Cruelty is not defined in the Act of 1955. Physical cruelty
can be proved by oral and documentary evidence. As far as mental
cruelty is concerned, the same has to be decided based on the facts and
circumstances of each case taking into consideration the social standing
of the parties.
11.
Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955 provides desertion as a legal
ground for divorce. It allows either spouse to file for the dissolution of
marriage if the other party has deserted them for a continuous period of
at least two years right before filing the petition.
12. In the present case, respondent/husband (applicant) has enumerated
various acts of cruelty alleged to be committed by the appellant/non-
applicant (wife). The law on a wife's cruelty against her husband is not as

9 / 19
clear as the other way around. The concept of cruelty under matrimonial
law has traditionally been discussed in the context of a husband's conduct
towards his wife. There are instances where a wife may be found to have
treated her husband with cruelty because cruelty is a matter of conduct,
not gender. Matrimonial law does not presume that only one spouse is
capable of committing cruelty. Whether the husband or the wife has been
cruel depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
13. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/husband
made argument that learned Family Court fell into error in not considering
the fact that appellant proved the mental cruelty upon him by respondent-
wife. Learned Family Court fell into error in not considering that as
respondent/wife is residing separately since about five years, it caused
mental cruelty as appellant was deprived from enjoying conjugal
relationship. Respondent-wife has levelled allegation of extramarital
relationship with the wife of his younger brother without any proof and
basis. Such allegation without any proof and evidence caused mental
cruelty upon the appellant/husband which escaped consideration of
learned Family Court. Respondent-wife has lodged FIR against the
appellant and all family members alleging false allegation on which
criminal case was registered and charges under Section 498-A /34 was
framed. After full-fledged trial, appellant and the other accused persons
therein were acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A/34 in
th
Criminal Case No.1114 of 2019 dated 20 February 2024. He also
contended that respondent/wife filed complaint proceeding under the
Domestic Violence Act against the appellant and family members in the
year 2023 which also came to be dismissed. Respondent- wife filed an

10 / 19
application for maintenance which is registered as Case No.212 of 2023
and disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2025 in which the claim for
maintenance of respondent was rejected and the application for
maintenance was allowed to the extent of child only. The aforesaid act of
dragging the appellant and his family members in criminal case amounts
to mental cruelty which learned trial Court overlooked. Therefore,
impugned judgment and decree be set aside and suit filed by the
appellant/applicant be allowed.
14. To appreciate the ground as taken by learned counsel for the
appellant/husband, we have perused the record. Perusal of the reply filed
by respondent-wife would show that respondent/wife in para-2 of written
statement has specifically pleaded that after some time of marriage non-
applicant/respondent came to know that applicant husband is having extra
marital relationship/illicit relationship with wife of his younger brother. At
the time of recording evidence of prosecution witnesses question has
been posed to appellant/applicant Vinay Kumar Patle (PW1) that he is
having illicit relationship/extramarital relationship with wife of his younger
brother. Vivek Patel younger brother of appellant is examined as PW-2. In
para-8 of cross-examination this witness was also posed a question that
there is a love affair between appellant/applicant and his wife, which he
denied. The allegation of extramarital relation is without any foundation.
Allegation of having love affair/illicit relationship/extramarital relation of the
appellant/husband with his sister-in-law (wife of younger brother) definitely
would amount to a mental cruelty. Such allegation would definitely cause
mental pain, agony and suffering. The nature of allegation which is

11 / 19
levelled not only hurt the appellant/husband but also his family member
with whom such allegation is leveled residing in the same house.
15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate
Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate reported in (2003) 6 SCC 334 while
considering the cruelty caused upon one spouse by another when
allegation is leveled of unchastity/extramarital relation with a person
outside the wedlock, has observed thus”
“7. The question that requires to be answered first is
as to whether the averments, accusations and
character assassination of the wife by the appellant
husband in the written statement constitutes mental
cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this
regard has come to be well settled and declared that
levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and
indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and
allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave
assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as
well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of
perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the
context of an educated Indian wife and judged by
Indian conditions and standards would amount to
worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to
substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the
wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the
written statement or suggested in the course of
examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy
the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid
down by this Court. On going through the relevant
portions of such allegations, we find that no exception
could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family
Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are

12 / 19
of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to
cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to
the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law
causing profound and lasting disruption and driving
the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend
that it would be dangerous for her to live with a
husband who was taunting her like that and rendered
the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.
x x x
x x x
x x x
11 . ……. As to what constitutes the required mental
cruelty for purposes of the said provision, in our view,
will not depend upon the numerical count of such
incidents or only on the continuous course of such
conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and
stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and
the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude,
necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial
home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of
ordinary nature only, the courts perhaps need
consider the further question as to whether their
continuance or persistence over a period of time
render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so
serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to
make the spouse charged with them genuinely and
reasonably conclude that the maintenance of
matrimonial home is not possible any longer. A
conscious and deliberate statement levelled with
pungency and that too placed on record, through the
written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or
brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely
because it came to be removed from the record only.
The allegations levelled and the incidents enumerated
in the case on hand, apart from they being per se

13 / 19
cruel in nature, on their own also constitute an
admission of the fact that for quite some time past the
husband had been persistently indulging in them,
unrelented and unmindful of its impact. That the
husband in this case has treated the wife with intense
cruelty is a fact, which became a fait accompli the day
they were made in the written statement. They
continued on record at any rate till 5-10-1988 and the
indelible impact and scar it initially should have
created, cannot be said to have got ipso facto
dissolved, with the amendments ordered. Therefore,
no exception could be taken to the courts below
placing reliance on the said conduct of the appellant,
in this regard, to record a finding against him.
16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Vs. K. Meena reported in
(2016) 9 SCC 455 observed thus:
“16. We have carefully gone through the evidence
but we could not find any reliable evidence to show
that the appellant had an extra-marital affair with
someone. Except for the baseless and reckless
allegations, there is not even the slightest evidence
that would suggest that there was something like an
affair of the appellant with the maid named by the
respondent. We consider levelling of absolutely false
allegations and that too, with regard to an extra-
marital life to be quite serious and that can surely be
a cause for mental cruelty.
x x x
x x x
x x x
19. Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and
the judgment delivered by the trial court, we firmly
believe that there was no need to take a different

14 / 19
view than the one taken by the trial court. The
behaviour of the respondent wife appears to be
terrifying and horrible. One would find it difficult to live
with such a person with tranquility and peace of
mind. Such torture would adversely affect the life of
the husband. ….”
17. The other instance of causing mental cruelty upon appellant/husband is
that the respondent/wife has lodged a report in the Police Station Janjgir-
Champa bearing Crime No.209 of 2019. As per the submission made by
learned counsel for the appellant/husband, Criminal Case No.1114 of 2019
registered pursuant to aforementioned crime number, after full-fledged
trial, was disposed of by judgment of acquittal of the appellant and other
family members. If the husband or his family members have been
implicated in a false and frivolous criminal case in which complainant/wife
has contested the case, led evidence and thereafter the criminal case is
disposed of resulting in acquittal of accused persons, then in the opinion
of this Court, it would cause severe mental pain and agony to
appellant/husband.
18. In case of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported in (2023) 17 SCC 433 ,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“9. The High Court in appeal, came to the conclusion
that the mere fact that the respondent did not allow her
husband to enter his house on 29-11-1998, would not
prove that it was her intention to bring cohabitation
permanently to an end and therefore the ground of
dissolution of marriage on desertion was not made out.
As far as filing of various complaints under Sections
323, 324 and 498-A of IPC are concerned, the High
Court was of the view that mere filing of such

15 / 19
complaints, or their result in acquittal would not amount
to cruelty, as the wife was only exercising her options
available to her under the law. Moreover, what has to be
seen are also the circumstances under which these
complaints were filed.
x x x
x x x
x x x
15. The High Court has taken a view that mere filing of
criminal cases against the appellant husband would not
constitute cruelty. All the same, the number of criminal
cases filed by the respondent wife against the appellant
husband are far too many which have been discussed
above. All these cases have either resulted in discharge
or acquittal of the appellant husband, if not before the
pronouncement of the judgment of the Delhi High Court
but definitely after the pronouncement of the judgment
[ Kavita v. Rakesh Raman , 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1768]
of the Delhi High Court. Moreover, a three-Judge Bench
of this Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [Naveen
Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558] held that
repeatedly filing of criminal cases by one party against
the other in a matrimonial matter would amount to
cruelty and the same was reiterated by a Division Bench
of this Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [K.
Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 : (2013)
2 SCC (Civ) 775 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 963] .
x x x
x x x
x x x
21. The view [Kavita v. Rakesh Raman, 2011 SCC OnLine
Del 1768] taken by the Delhi High Court in the present
case that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does
not constitute cruelty as what has also to be seen are the
circumstances under which cases were filed, is a finding
we do not wish to disregard totally, in fact as a pure
proposition of law it may be correct, but then we must also

16 / 19
closely examine the entire facts of the case which are
now before us. When we take into consideration the facts
as they exist today, we are convinced that continuation of
this marriage would mean continuation of cruelty, which
each now inflicts on the other.”
19. In case of K. Srinivas Vs. K.Sunita reported in (2014) 16 SCC 34 ,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“5. The respondent wife has admitted in her cross-
examination that she did not mention all the incidents
on which her complaint is predicated in her statement
under Section 161 CrPC. It is not her case that she
had actually narrated all these facts to the investigating
officer, but that he had neglected to mention them.
This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that
the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought.
We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal
complaint was “ill advised”. Adding thereto is the factor
that the High Court had been informed of the acquittal
of the appellant husband and members of his family. In
these circumstances, the High Court ought to have
concluded that the respondent wife knowingly and
intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to
embarrass and incarcerate the appellant and seven
members of his family and that such conduct
unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in
Section 13(1)( i-a ) of the Hindu Marriage Act. ”
14. True it is that copy of judgment of acquittal passed in criminal case is
not placed in record, however, perusal of para-20 of the impugned
judgment would show that learned trial Court has recorded that in Police
Station – Janjgir Champa crime was registered for alleged commission of

17 / 19
offence under Section 498-A /34 of IPC against the appellant/applicant
(husband) and his family members. Learned Family Court in para-21 has
also recorded that crime was registered. However, till the date of decision
on the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, judgment in
criminal case is not passed and it is pending consideration from which it is
appearing that based on the report lodged, crime was registered against
the applicant husband/appellant for alleged commission of offence under
Section 498 A /34 of IPC and criminal case is pending in the Court on the
date of impugned judgment.
20. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant that criminal case
culminated in acquittal of accused persons including the
appellant/applicant (husband) and his family members is not categorically
disputed by the learned counsel for respondent/non-applicant (wife)
21. In the case at hand, perusal of the impugned order would show that
learned trial Court has formulated two issues, first on the ground of mental
and physical cruelty and second on desertion. Learned trial Court has not
found proved the issue formulated with regard to desertion only on the
ground that two years have not elapsed from the date of alleged desertion
by the wife as the date of desertion is pleaded as 04.12.2018 and suit for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 was filed on
10.01.2020. Respondent/wife (non-applicant) did not appear before the
trial Court to give her evidence, neither she nor any other witness was
examined.
22. In the above facts of the case, the pleading made in the plaint,
evidence brought in record by the plaintiff/appellant with regard to date of

18 / 19
desertion and further the pleading made in reply to application under
Section 13 of the Act of 1955 can be taken into consideration. In plaint
there is pleading that respondent-wife left the house on 04.12.2018. In
written statement, respondent-wife pleaded that in the night on 04.12.2018
she was being assaulted on which she called police and thereafter on
05.12.2018, report was lodged in the police station Janjgir Champa from
which it can be presumed that respondent left company of
plaintiff/appellant from 04.12.2018 and since then the appellant/husband
was precluded from enjoying conjugal relationship with his wife.
23. Learned Family Court has not discussed in the impugned judgment
about the allegation levelled by wife of extramarital relationship/illicit
relationship with wife of his younger brother and to consider whether that
will amount to mental cruelty or not, which in the opinion of this Court,
learned Family Court committed error of law in not discussing the
evidence available on record of cruelty.
24. For the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that
learned Family Court have decided the issue No.2 correctly. However,
issue No.1 has been decided erroneously contrary to pleading and oral
evidence and therefore finding on issue No.1 is perverse and not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
25. Accordingly, finding on issue No.1 i.e. “cruelty” is set aside. In view of
discussion made above we hold that appellant (applicant/plaintiff/husband)
herein has proved mental cruelty caused upon him by
respondent/defendant/wife for the discussion as made herein-above on
the issue of cruelty.

19 / 19
26. In view of nature of allegation levelled by respondent-wife, which is
horrible, it would not be difficult for the appellant/husband to leave with
tranquility and peace of emotion with respondent/wife, but continuation of
marriage will constitute cruelty, and therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that appellant/husband has made out a case for grant of decree of
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
27. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree
dated 28.03.2024 is set aside. Consequently, the application preferred by
the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
is allowed, and the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the
respondent on 06.05.2017 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty.
28. Let a decree be drawn accordingly.
S Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
Judge Judge
Praveen