SMT. EYTISHRI vs SIDDHARTH JANBANDHU

1

CGHC010301802024
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 19.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on 05.11.2026
Judgment uploaded on 05.11.2026
FA(MAT) No. 299 of 2024
Smt. Eytishri W/o Siddharth Janbandhu, aged about 30 years R/o -
Kedarbadi, Ward No. 03, Dongargarh, Tahsil - Dongargarh, Districr -
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. At Present- R/o - Rajanand Sukhdeve,
Shankar Nagar, Near Baudhh Vihar, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh. (Correct Address has been mentioned ... Appellant
versus
Siddharth Janbandhu S/o Late Tarachand Janbandhu, aged about 35
years R/o Kedarbadi, Ward No. 03, Dongargarh, Tahsil - Dongargarh,
District - Rajnanadgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For appellant : Shri Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri Shubham Singh, Advocate
DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J

2
This is an appeal by the appellant/wife against the judgment and
decree dated 03.08.2024 passed by First Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Durg, CG in Civil Suit No. 315/2021 dissolving the
marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.
2. Appellant in this appeal shall be referred to as “wife” and the
respondent as “husband” for convenience.
3. Marriage between the parties had taken place on 01.01.2015 as
per the Hindu rites and rituals at Dongargarh and out of their wedlock a
son namely Advik was born who presently is living with his mother (the
appellant herein).
4. It is pleaded by the husband that some time after the marriage,
the wife expressed her desire to complete the Physiotherapy course.
Citing easy availability of train facility in between Dongargarh and Durg,
when he asked her to go on with the said course by making up-down
visit to Durg on daily basis, the wife insisted to do that by staying with
her parents at Durg. After staying for some time at Durg, she
discontinued her Physiotherapy course and started pursuing B.Com,
PGDCA and MSW course by making to and fro visits by train. On
07.05.2017 she expressed her unwillingness to live with her mother-in-
law. When the husband asked her to look after the marital affairs by
living at Dongargarh which she did not do before on account of her
study related frequent visits to Durg, she lost her tamper and left for her
parental home carrying some of her luggage, and made a report against
him and his mother in Mahila Thana, Durg. During counselling when no
viable solution could be found in spite of 4-5 sittings, the proceedings

3
were closed. Thereafter, without informing him or taking his consent,
she took a job of Data Entry Operator at District Hospital, Durg. Having
coming to know this through an acquaintance when he tried to know
about her employment, she told him of there being no need of taking
any permission from him and that she was free to think of her well
being. All his efforts for truce went in vain. The offer from the husband to
take up the job at Dongargarh in place of Durg for the same
remuneration also received outright rejection from the wife. It is the case
of the husband that in December 2017 he received a telephonic call
from a woman namely Rajesh Chhatri who disclosed to him of an illicit
affair between her husband and the appellant herein. Husband however
did not take it seriously. Thereafter, he without informing the wife went to
Durg and found a mobile phone on her bed which was in the name of
Rajesh Chhatri. Meanwhile, the wife came over there, snatched the
mobile set from his hand and turned argumentative with him. When he
insisted her to accompany him to Dongargarh, she got furious and
asked him to get out. Husband again visited Durg to meet the wife but
she did not even open the door. She stopped receiving his phone calls
and also blocked his number. The husband then filed an application for
restitution of conjugal rights on 17.07.2018 and on coming to know this,
the wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
on 10.10.2018. The wife also filed a transfer petition (TPC No. 19/2019)
before this High Court and during its hearing both the parties were
called upon to withdraw their respective cases and started living affably.
Husband thereafter took steps to start the spousal relationship but the

4
wife did not budge from her standpoint nor did she honour the words of
this Court. The wife thereafter made a complaint to Superintendent of
Police, Rajnandgaon and in the inquiry by the SHO Dongargarh, it was
found that the wife had an illicit relationship with some another man.
Since the wife did not raise any objection to this inquiry report, she
seemingly has no say on this. The wife is alleged to have shown no
interest in continuing the matrimony, there is no other way out to the
husband than seeking a riddance as a remedial measure.
5. There is blanket denial of the allegations by the wife of all the
allegations of the husband. According to her, her son by then 04 did not
receive the affectionate lap of his father (respondent herein). It is
pleaded that the husband drove her out of his house and did not make
any effort to take her back. It is further pleaded that by the order of High
Court the case was transferred to Durg vide order dated 02.12.2019 but
the husband had withdrawn the application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act before the case being transferred, and filed an application
seeking dissolution of marriage, which shows that he was some-how
determined to obtain the decree of divorce. It is pleaded that after the
order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the High Court directing the parties
to withdraw their respective applications, she went to the house of the
husband, but after being tortured she was again driven out of his house.
As regards the report submitted by the concerned SHO to the
Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon where her chastity has been put
to question, she pleads that she would drag the persons involved from
the legal side. It is pleaded that as the welfare of the children is required

5
to be taken care of by both the parents, she is ready and willing to
continue her matrimonial bond by living with the husband. On these
pleadings, she sought for the dismissal of the suit.
6. Learned trial Court has principally framed three issues. The issue
as regards cruelty by the wife has been found to be proved, the issue
regarding desertion has however not been found proved, and the last
but not the least regarding entitlement of the husband for decree of
divorce has also been found proved. Putting it differently, the decree of
divorce was granted in favour of the husband by the impugned
judgment and decree. Hence this appeal by the wife.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit as under:-
(I) that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court
is contrary to the pleadings, evidence and material available on record
and is therefore liable to be set aside;
(ii) that the Family Court has erred in holding that the allegation of
cruelty against the wife stood has been proved, and that the findings so
recorded are not based on proper appreciation of the evidence on
record;
(iii) that such serious allegations of matrimonial cruelty were required
to be established by cogent and reliable evidence and mere assertions
cannot constitute proof of cruelty; and
(iv) that the allegation of extramarital affair against the wife is totally ill
founded;

6
(v) that the finding of cruelty is therefore perverse and unsustainable,
and being so the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the
judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Family Court.
(vi) Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of
Smt. Sonal Mehar vs. Satish Kumar rendered in FA(MAT) No.
71/2024 on 06.08.2024.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband
would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant/wife
and submit that the findings recorded by learned Family Court granting
decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent/husband
are fully justified and based on proper appreciation of the material
available on record. Being so, no interference is needed in the
impugned judgment and decree and therefore the appeal be dismissed.
Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter
of Narendra vs. K. Meena reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 and in the
matter of Sonal Talpada vs. Veerbhan Singh rendered in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10422 of 2025 .
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
10. The point for determination before this Court is whether learned
Family Court was justified in granting decree of divorce and whether
such decree can sustain the judicial scrutiny of this Court?
11. Undisputedly, the Marriage between the parties had taken place
on 01.01.2015 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock
a son namely Advik was born who presently is living with his mother.

7
The record does not go to show that the husband ever refused the wife
to pursue her studies or get the employment of her choice. On the
contrary, he wanted her to go with her studies or carry on the job but at
the same time it was also his concern that the job and studies could be
taken along from Dongargarh itself so that the harmony could be
maintained between the work life, and domestic life including the
responsibilities of in-laws, that of the spouse and the minor child. As is
apparent from the record, she did not listen to the husband and
persisted upon staying at Durg with her parents and to take the
assignment of her choice from there itself. Expectation of the husband
from the wife to pursue her studies by making up and down journey on
daily basis looking to the easy train availability so that the personal life
and work life balance remained undisturbed, appears to have been
quite genuine and untainted with any mala fide. If statement of the
father of the wife (NAW-3) is seen, it is manifest that even after the
eruption of dispute the husband used to visit his house to meet the wife
in the interval of one month, if not in that of 15 days. It also strengthens
goodwill gesture of the stand of the husband in insisting the wife to
strike the balance between the work life and personal life by taking
recourse to easily available train facility. This persistence on the part of
the wife not to live in the house of the husband and thus depriving him
of marital bliss falls within the sweep of mental cruelty. Dealing with the
point whether the disinclination on the part of wife not to live in the
house of the husband without there being any reasonable cause would
amount to cruelty to the husband, the Supreme Court in the matter of

8
Narendra vs. K. Meena reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 has held as
under:-
“11. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get
separated from his family. The evidence shows that
the family was virtually maintained from the income of
the Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or
desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get
separated from the parents upon getting married at the
instance of the wife, especially when the son is the
only earning member in the family. A son, brought up
and given education by his parents, has a moral and
legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents,
when they become old and when they have either no
income or have a meagre income. In India, generally
people do not subscribe to the western thought,
where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the
son gets separated from the family. In normal
circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family
of the husband after the marriage. She becomes
integral to and forms part of the family of the husband
and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she
would never insist that her husband should get
separated from the family and live only with her. In the
instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the
trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for
monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted
to get her husband separated from his family. The
averment of the Respondent was to the effect that the
income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining
his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is
absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is
absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is
no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the
Appellant to be separated from the family - the sole
reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant.
Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a
justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the
wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the
income of her husband is used for her and not for the
family members of the Respondent husband. We do
not see any reason to justify the said view of the High
Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a
pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a
wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal
practice and normal custom of the society, she must
have some justifiable reason for that and in this case,
we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary
consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion,

9
normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son
would like to be separated from his old parents and
other family members, who are also dependent upon
his income. The persistent effort of the Respondent
wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from
the family would be torturous for the husband and in
our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to
the conclusion that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’.”
In this case also the husband appears to have made all endeavour to
make the wife understand the situation and think of living in his house to
smoothly carry on the matrimony. Not only this, he did not want to
hinder her job in any manner whatsoever and always reassured her of
carrying out her assignment by availing the easily available train facility
from Dongargarh to Durg which hardly comes to be about 60 kms, but
the wife did not appear to budge. Thus it can be culled out that the
conduct of the wife in not standing by the husband for discharging the
matrimonial obligations coupled with the responsibility of the old aged
mother-in-law, amounts to cruelty.
12. Though there is an allegation of extramarital connection between
the wife and some outsider, this Court refrains from commenting upon
that aspect of the matter where her well cherished character is at stake.
It is a well settled legal position that cruelty may be physical or mental
and its determination depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the
Supreme Court has held that the cumulative effect of the conduct of the
parties has to be considered while determining whether mental cruelty
has been established or not. Supreme Court went on to observe that it
is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive

10
description of the circumstances which would constitute cruelty, but it
must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the
relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to
the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to
live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the
complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence need not be
absolutely essential to constitute cruelty rather a consistent course of
conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well
constitute the same. Having thus taken note of the pleadings of the
parties and the evidence so adduced, the finding recorded by learned
Family Court in holding that the act of the wife amounted to cruelty to
the husband within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 appears to be fully justified.
13. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we find no
sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned
Family Court. The appellant/wife has failed to establish any perversity or
illegality in the impugned judgment and decree. Consequently, the
appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The decision tried
to be brought to her rescue by the wife being on different factual matrix
is not applicable to the case in hand.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree
dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.315/2021 dissolving

11
the marriage between the parties are hereby affirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs. A decree be drawn accordingly.
15. The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Jyotishi
Digitally signed
by AVANISH
JYOTISHI
Date:
2026.11.05
14:48:25
+0530
AVANISH
JYOTISHI