TULESHWAR PRASAD CHANDRA vs SMT. RANU CHANDRA

1

CGHC010378832023 2026:CGHC:45406-DB
NAFR
ASHOK
SAHU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ASHOK
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.30
17:09:47 +0530
FA(MAT) No. 305 of 2023
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 15.09.2023 passed in Civil
Suit No. 51-A/2018 by the Principal Judge, Link Family Court, Sakti,
District Janjgir-Champa}
Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra, S/o. Mahettar Lal Chandra, Aged About 42
Years, R/o. Village Sarasdol, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharouda,
District Janjgir-Champa (New District Sakti), Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
Plaintiff
versus
Smt. Ranu Chandra, W/o. Tuleshwar Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o.
Security Barik Kulda Open Cast Project Vasundhara Area Balinga, Post
Balinga, Police Station Himgir, District Sundargarh (Odisha), At Present
Resident Of Balram Chal, Infront Of Kalibadi, Mudapar, Korba, Post
Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
Defendant
For Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate
Division Bench: -
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu and
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, JJ.

2
Judgment On Board
(27/10/2026)
Sushma Sawant, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/plaintiff husband
Tuleshwer Prasad Chandra has preferred this appeal challenging
the judgment & decree dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Principal
Judge, Link Family Court, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil
Suit No.51-A/2018 (Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra v. Smt.
Ranu Chandra) , by which his application for grant of decree of
divorce against respondent/defendant wife Smt.Ranu Chandra ,
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
-:Case of the Appellant/Plaintiff Husband before the Family
Court:-
3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff husband Tuleshwer Prasad
Chandra , in brief, was that his marriage with the respondent/
defendant wife Smt. Ranu Chandra , was solemnized on

3
21.05.2002 at Village-Kansa, Tehsil-Dabhra, District-Janjgir-
Champa (Chhattisgarh), in accordance with Hindu rites and customs.
Two sons, namely Gaurav and Tarun Chandra , were born within
the wedlock, and the parties initially resided together at Village-
Sarsadoli. The appellant/plaintiff husband was employed in the
Indian Army. Their matrimonial relationship gradually deteriorated
due to the quarrelsome and cruel conduct of the
respondent/defendant wife, who frequently quarrelled with and
abused him and his family members and subjected him to physical
and mental harassment, despite repeated efforts by relatives to
reconcile the parties, there was no improvement in her conduct.
4. The appellant/plaintiff husband further pleaded that, during his
stay at Amritsar, the respondent/defendant wife had consumed
poison in his absence and was hospitalised. He also pleaded that she
neglected household responsibilities and refused to attend to his
parents. According to him, the parties had executed an undertaking
on stamp paper of ₹100 on 15.05.2014 before their relatives, whereby
the respondent/defendant wife had expressed regret and assured
that such incidents would not recur; however, their relationship did
not improve. He further pleaded that the respondent/defendant wife
had been living separately since 15.12.2015 after taking her
belongings and that there was no possibility of resuming their
matrimonial life. On these grounds, the appellant/plaintiff husband
sought a decree of divorce.

4
-:Written Statement of Respondent/Defendant- Wife before
the Family Court:-
5. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant wife Smt.Ranu
Chandra contested the suit by filing her written statement and
denied the material allegations levelled against her. She contended
that the appellant/plaintiff husband had made false and baseless
allegations of cruelty and desertion. According to her, she had neither
executed the alleged undertaking dated 15.05.2014 nor deserted the
appellant/plaintiff husband or their two sons. She further contended
that the appellant/plaintiff husband had abandoned her and the
children and was residing with another female employee. She also
denied the allegation that she had consumed poison at Amritsar or
had been hospitalised on that account.
6. The respondent/defendant wife further pleaded that she had been
residing in a security barrack at an open-cast coal project in the
Vasundhara area, Balinga, District Sundargarh, Odisha, while the
appellant/plaintiff husband continued to reside separately from her.
She alleged that the appellant/plaintiff husband had failed to disclose
his assets, income and other relevant financial particulars and had
not made adequate arrangements for the education and maintenance
of their minor children, including their differently abled son.
Accordingly, she sought dismissal of the divorce petition.

5
-: Proceedings before the learned Family Court :-
7. 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. /
क्याअनावेदिका प्रत्यर्थीनेविवाहकेअनुष्ठापन
" "
अप्रमाणित
/
केपश्चात्आवेदक याचिकाकर्ताकेसाथक्रूरता
?
काव्यवहारकिया
2. /
क्याअनावेदिका प्रत्यर्थीनेयाचिकापेशकिये
“ "
साबितनहीं

जानेकेअव्यवहितदोवर्षसेअधिककालावधि
/
सेआवेदक याचिकाकर्ताकोअभित्यक्तकर
?
रखीहै
3. ? " -18 "
सहायताएवंवादब्यय कंडिका अनुसार
-:Details of evidence and documents available before the
Family Court:-
-:Evidence led by the Appellant/Pl aintiff- Tuleshwar Prasad
Chandra:-
8. Before the Family Court, the appellant/plaintiff has examined
himself Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra as (P.W.-1) and also examined
his witness Maniram Chandra as (P.W.-2). The appellant/plaintiff
husband has not adduced any documentary evidence in support of
his case.

6
Evidence led by the Respondent/Defendants- Smt. Ranu
Chandra :-
9. The respondent/defendant herself Smt. Ranu Chandra has examined
as (D.W.-2) and also examined Gourav Chandra as (D.W.-2) . The
respondent/defendant wife has produced documents Ex.D-1 to
Ex.D-3 in support of her case.
-:Judgment of the trial Court:-
10. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Family Court, by its
judgment and decree dated 15.09.2023, dismissed the
appellant/plaintiff’s suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:-
(i) That, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below
dated 15-09-2023 is arbitrary, unreasonable, against the law and
contrary to the facts of the case and therefore the impugned
order/judgment deserves to be set-aside.
(ii) That, the learned family court has not taken into consideration
the pleadings of the appellant made by him in the application under
Section 13 (A) of Hindu Marriage Act, in which he has submitted that
15-05-2014, the agreement which has been executed between the
parties and in the social meeting, the respondent in stamp paper has
made her submission that she will not repeat the misbehavior against
the appellant as well as their parents.

7
(iii) That, the learned court below has not properly appreciated the
evidence adduced by the appellant to prove his case of cruelty by the
respondent/wife and her family members.
(iv) That, the evidence adduced by the appellant as well as by one
Mani Ram Chandra are in accordance with the application, which
reveals that cruelty has been done by the respondent wife against the
appellant.
(v) That, by the evidence of respondent along with Gaurav Chandra
does not rectified the case of appellant therefore the impugned
judgment passed by the learned family Court is required to be set-
aside.
-:Proceedings before the Appellate Court:-
11. 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:-
12. 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 ?

8
(ii) Whether the Appellant/plaintiff husband is entitled for
decree of divorce as claimed?
-:Argument of the Appellant/Plaintiff- Husband Tuleshwar
Prasad Chandra:-
13. 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 contends that the undertaking dated
15.05.2014, executed by the respondent/defendant wife on stamp
paper in a social meeting, wherein she had assured that she would
not repeat her alleged misbehaviour towards the appellant/plaintiff
husband and his parents, has not been properly considered. He
further submits that the testimony of the appellant/plaintiff husband
and witness Mani Ram Chandra is consistent with the pleadings and
establishes the alleged cruelty committed by the
respondent/defendant wife. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned
judgment dated 15.09.2023 be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
-: Argument of the Respondent /Defendant-
Smt. Ranu Chandra:-
14. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant wife submits that
the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9
-: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.
16. Since the present appeal concerns the grounds of “cruelty” and
“desertion” under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant statutory
provisions for ready reference: -
“ 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…...
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated
the petitioner with cruelty ; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period
of not less than two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition; or
Explanation.- In this sub-section, the expression
'desertion' means the desertion of the petitioner by the
other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and
without the consent or against the wish of such party, and
includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.”

10
17. Section 13 sub-section(1) clause (ia) of Act of 1955 provides that a
decree of divorce can be granted in case after the solemnization of
marriage, the petitioner has been treated with “cruelty” . Similarly
Section 13 (1) (ib) of Act 1955 provides for grant of decree of divorce
provided the other party has “deserted” petitioner for a continuous
period of not less than two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition.
18. Appellant/Plaintiff filed above mentioned suit for divorce on the
grounds of “cruelty” as well as “desertion” . Having regard to the
allegations levelled by the appellant/plaintiff husband, it would be
appropriate to examine, in the first instance, whether the ground of
“cruelty” has been established, followed by consideration of the
ground of desertion.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that every trivial
quarrel, ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial life, or minor discord
between spouses does not constitute cruelty. The conduct
complained of must be assessed in the context of the parties’
matrimonial relationship and the cumulative effect of the
circumstances. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC
511, the Supreme Court explained the concept of mental cruelty and
emphasised that it must be assessed on the facts and circumstances
of each case.

11
20. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in paragraph 101, has enumerated certain illustrative
instances of human behaviour that may be relevant in determining
whether a case of “mental cruelty” is made out. The Court clarified
that these instances are illustrative and not exhaustive, and that no
uniform standard can be laid down for all matrimonial disputes. The
relevant portion of paragraph 101 is as follows:
“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 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 matrimonial
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

12
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.
(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.

13
(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.
(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.”
21. In the aforesaid context, the facts and evidence of the present case
are being examined. In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff
husband examined himself as (P.W.-1) and also examined Mani
Ram Chandra as (P.W.-2) . However, Mani Ram Chandra
(P.W.-2) had no direct knowledge of the alleged incidents and
admitted as much in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination .
Consequently, his testimony does not materially support the
appellant/plaintiff husband's case of cruelty.

14
22. As regards the testimony of the appellant/plaintiff husband
Tuleshwer Prasad Chandra (P.W.-1) , his own examination-in-
chief indicates that the parties continued to reside together from the
date of their marriage, i.e., 21.05.2002, until December 2015 ,
and that two sons were born during their marriage.
23. Although he referred to an incident in which the
respondent/defendant wife allegedly consumed poison at
Amritsar , the respondent/defendant wife Ranu Chandra (D.W.-
1) , in paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, denied the suggestion
put to her and stated that it was the appellant/plaintiff husband who
had given her the poison.
24. The evidence on record reveals that the parties have levelled
allegations against each other. In these circumstances, the testimony
of their son Gaurav Chandra (D.W.-2) assumes significance. He
is of sufficient age and maturity to understand the circumstances of
the matrimonial dispute and has been residing with his mother. No
reason has been established to suggest that he would falsely depose
against his father.
25. For the sake of argument, even if the appellant/plaintiff husband's
version that the respondent/defendant wife had consumed poison is
accepted, the question remains as to why she would have taken such
a step. Whether she was suffering from any mental illness or whether
there were other circumstances that led to the incident, has not been

15
established by the evidence on record. If she was suffering from any
mental illness, the appellant/plaintiff husband ought to have taken
appropriate steps for her treatment. In the absence of any cogent
evidence explaining the circumstances of the incident, the same
cannot, by itself, be treated as establishing cruelty on the part of the
respondent/defendant wife.
26. Another significant circumstance is that the alleged agreement/
undertaking dated 15.05.2014 was neither exhibited nor
tendered in evidence in a manner that afforded the respondent/
defendant wife an opportunity to explain its contents. She also
denied having executed any such undertaking. Therefore, in the
absence of proper proof, the alleged undertaking cannot be relied
upon to establish the appellant/plaintiff husband's case.
27. Furthermore, paragraph 14 of the cross-examination of the
appellant/plaintiff husband Tuleshwer Prasad Chandra (P.W.-
1) brings out that, during a quarrel between the parties at Balinga,
Odisha , the respondent/defendant wife sustained an injury to her
head, after which the appellant/plaintiff husband left her there and
went to his village, where he remained for two to three months.
28. He remained away from her for two to three months without making
any enquiries about her well-being. This circumstance, particularly
when the respondent/defendant wife had sustained a head injury,
indicates that the appellant/plaintiff husband, rather than the

16
respondent/defendant wife, was more responsible for the cruelty
arising out of their matrimonial discord.
29. Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff
husband, when considered individually and cumulatively, do not
establish conduct of such a grave and weighty nature as would
constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, nor do they fall within the illustrative
instances of mental cruelty discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 .
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
appellant/plaintiff husband Tuleshwer Prasad Chandra 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.
31. Now, turning to the ground of “desertion” , the governing principle
is that mere physical separation does not, by itself, establish
desertion within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, the appellant/plaintiff husband must establish the factum
of separation and the respondent/defendant wife's intention to bring
cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi), without
reasonable cause and without his consent or against his wish.

17
32. These principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Lachman
Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 , and
Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi,
(2002) 1 SCC 308 . In the present case, the evidence on record
indicates that the appellant/plaintiff husband left the respondent/
defendant wife and their children and went to his village at a time
when the respondent/defendant wife had sustained a head injury.
33. Further, as emerges from paragraph 15 of his cross-examination, in
the proceedings before the Family Counselling Centre as well as in
the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the
respondent/defendant wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, the appellant/plaintiff husband refused to take her back
and resume cohabitation. He also did not deny that one of the
children was ill, yet no arrangement was made for the child's
treatment. All these circumstances indicate that it was the
appellant/plaintiff husband, and not the respondent/defendant wife,
who had abandoned the matrimonial relationship and withdrawn
from cohabitation.
34. In view of the evidence discussed above, the appellant/plaintiff
husband has failed to establish that the respondent/defendant wife
deserted him without reasonable cause and with the requisite
intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. Rather, the
evidence indicates that the appellant/plaintiff husband's own
conduct contributed to the continuation of their separation.

18
35. The allegations of desertion levelled against the respondent/
defendant wife are, therefore, not substantiated by the evidence on
record. Accordingly, the learned Family Court has committed no
error in refusing to accept desertion as a ground for divorce.
-:Final Conclusion:-
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
appellant/plaintiff husband Tuleshwer Prasad Chandra has failed to
establish the grounds of “cruelty” and “desertion” as
contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
37. 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 .
38. 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