SMT. ANJALI YADAV vs RAHUL YADAV

Page No.1 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024

CGHC010023062024 2026:CGHC:45957-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed
by
SAIFAN
KHAN
SAIFAN
KHAN
FA(MAT) No. 33 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}
Smt. Anjali Yadav, W/o. Rahul Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, Daughter
Of Chandrabhushan Yadav, R/o. Block -4/c, Sadak No. 11, Sectro -06,
Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
Versus
Rahul Yadav, S/o. Heeralal Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Block No.
100/A, Camp-01, Subhash Chowk, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Upasna Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate
Division Bench: -
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu and
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(29/10/2026)
Sushma Sawant, J.
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of
the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant/defendant- wife Smt.
Anjali Yadav has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment &
decree dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Durg in Civil Suit No.704/2019 (Rahul Yadav v. Smt.

Page No.2 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
Anjali Yadav) , by which the application for grant of decree of
divorce filed by the respondent/plaintiff- husband against
appellant/defendant- wife has been allowed.
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 admitted that the marriage of the plaintiff/husband- Rahul
Yadav with the defendant/wife Smt. Anjali Yadav was solemnized
on 08.12.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals and, from the
said marriage, a child was also born.
-:Case of the Respondent/Plaintiff – Husband before the
Family Court:-
4. The respondent/plaintiff husband Rahul Yadav, filed Original
Civil Suit No.704/2019 (Rahul Yadav v. Smt. Anjali Yadav)
for a decree of divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' committed by the
appellant/defendant wife Smt. Anjali Yadav. According to the
plaint averments, the case of the respondent/plaintiff husband , in
brief, is that from the very beginning of their marriage, the conduct of
the appellant/defendant wife towards his parents, elder brother and
sister-in-law was improper. She used to humiliate his physically

Page No.3 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
disabled elder brother by making remarks that the
respondent/plaintiff husband spent his hard-earned money on him.
About two months after the marriage, the appellant/defendant wife
went to her parental home and, after 5–6 days, informed the
respondent/plaintiff husband that she was pregnant. After staying
there for about 15–20 days, she was brought back to the matrimonial
home by the plaintiff. Thereafter, she frequently quarrelled over
household work, misbehaved with his elderly parents, elder brother
and sister-in-law and abused them in filthy and obscene language.
She also used to convey fabricated and distorted accounts of
household matters to her parental family. Consequently, her self-
proclaimed brother and father came to the plaintiff's house and
forcibly took her away.
5. It is further pleaded that during the pregnancy of the
appellant/defendant wife, the respondent/plaintiff husband took
proper care of her and ensured her medical treatment and regular
check-ups at Sector 09 Hospital. He also brought her back to the
matrimonial home and continued to look after her. In the meantime,
on 18-09-2016, a male child was born to the parties at Sector 09
Hospital, and the entire expenses incurred in connection with the
delivery were borne by the respondent/plaintiff husband and his
family members.

Page No.4 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
6. It is further case of the respondent/plaintiff husband that, after the
birth of the child, the appellant/defendant wife continuously started
pressurizing him to live separately from his parents and to establish a
separate household. When the respondent/plaintiff husband refused
to accede to her demand, she used to quarrel with him and even use
to abuse him. The appellant/defendant wife’s father also started
pressurizing the respondent/plaintiff husband to live separately
from his family and insisted that the respondent/plaintiff husband
should become a Ghar Jamai (a son-in-law residing at his wife’s
parental home) and assist in their business. The appellant/defendant
wife invariably insisted that the respondent/plaintiff husband to
reside with her at her parental home, and her parents extended their
full support to her in this endeavour. Though the
appellant/defendant wife herself used to prepare meals for the
respondent/plaintiff husband and the child, but she neither
enquired whether the plaintiff’s parents required food nor provided
them with any food.
7. It is also the case of the respondent/plaintiff husband that on several
occasions, he requested the appellant/defendant wife to return to the
matrimonial home and reside with him. However, the
appellant/defendant wife, along with her parents, remained adamant
about residing at her parental home and refused to return to the
matrimonial home. Approximately one year thereafter, the
appellant/defendant wife and her father levelled false allegations
against the respondent/plaintiff husband before the competent

Page No.5 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
departmental authority at his workplace, wherein the
appellant/defendant wife was advised to reside at the plaintiff’s
house. Despite making every possible effort, the respondent/plaintiff
husband ultimately, through his Advocate, requested the
appellant/defendant wife to return to her matrimonial home within
15 days and lead her matrimonial life peacefully. However, the
appellant/defendant wife showed no inclination to return to the
matrimonial home. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant wife lodged
a complaint against the respondent/plaintiff husband and his family
members at Mahila Police Station, Bhilai, wherein after three
counselling sessions, the respondent/plaintiff husband agreed to the
condition that the appellant/defendant wife would reside separately
with him. However, during the final counselling session, the
appellant/defendant wife submitted a written statement expressing
that she did not wish to reside with the respondent/plaintiff husband
and demanded maintenance from him.
8. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant wife also got a criminal case
registered under the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the respondent/plaintiff husband. It is also averred in the
plaint that despite being the plaintiff’s legally wedded wife, the
appellant/defendant deprived the respondent/plaintiff husband of
matrimonial happiness and subjected him and his family members to
continuous cruel and humiliating treatment, as a result of which, the
plaintiff suffered physical, mental and financial distress. Under such

Page No.6 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
circumstances, it was become impossible for the respondent/plaintiff
husband and the appellant/defendant wife to continue living
together as husband and wife. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff
husband filed a suit before the learned Family Court with prayer of
dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on
08.12.2015 by way of a decree of divorce.
-:Written Statement of Appellant/Defendant- Wife before
the Family Court:-
9. On the other hand, the appellant/defendant wife Smt. Anjali
Yadav contested the suit by filing her written statement and apart
from admitting the undisputed facts, the appellant/defendant wife,
in her written statement, has denied the remaining material
averments and submitted that she resided at her matrimonial home
until 20.01.2016, whereafter the respondent/plaintiff husband sent
her to her parental home. The appellant/defendant wife remained at
her parental home for approximately two months. On 23.05.2018,
the respondent/plaintiff husband brought the appellant/defendant
wife back to her parental home by making false representations and,
upon a quarrel with and assault upon the appellant/defendant’s
father, he became aggressive. Thereupon, the appellant/defendant’s
father dialled 112 and informed the police about the incident. When
the police personnel directed the respondent/plaintiff husband to
take the respondent/defendant wife and the child along with him, the
appellant/defendant wife stayed at her matrimonial home for
approximately four days.

Page No.7 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
10. It is further pleaded that,thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff
husband again assaulted and harassed her and, on 27.05.2018,
dropped her at her parental home. Since then, the
appellant/defendant wife has been residing at her parental home
along with her minor son. The respondent/plaintiff husband did not
make any genuine effort, either from a social or legal standpoint, to
keep the appellant/defendant wife and the child with him, whereas
the appellant/defendant’s parents made every possible effort to send
her back to the respondent/plaintiff husband ’s house. However, the
respondent/plaintiff husband showed no willingness to take her
back. Thus, on behalf of the appellant/defendant wife, it was prayed
that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff husband be dismissed.
-: Proceedings before the learned Family Court :-
11. The Family Court after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence available on record, framed following issues and answered
the issues as under:-
Sr.
Question Conclusion
1.
Whether the defendant has
treated the plaintiff with cruelty ?
"Proved"
2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
obtain a decree of dissolution of
marriage against the defendant ?
“Yes"
3.
Relief and costs of litigation? " Petition allowed in
terms of Para-22"

Page No.8 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
-:Details of the evidence and documents available before
the Family Court:-
-:Evidence led by the Respondent/Pl aintiff- Rahul Yadav:-
12. Before the Family Court, the respondent/plaintiff- husband
examined himself Rahul Yadav (PW-1) and also examined Heeralal
Yadav (PW-2) and Rohit Kumar Yadav (PW-3) as witnesses in
support of his pleadings. The respondent/plaintiff husband has
exhibited the documents Ex.P1-C to Ex.P4-C .
Evidence led by the Appellant/Defendant- Smt. Anjali :-
13. The appellant/defendant-wife herself Smt. Anjali examined herself as
DW-01 and also examined Chandrabhushan Yadav (DW-02) .
However, the appellant/defendant- wife has not produced any
document in support of her case.
-:Judgment of the trial Court:-
14. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Family Court, by its
judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 , allowed the suit filed by
the respondent/plaintiff by recording thus:
“ 1.
वादीराहुलयादवएवंप्रतिवादिनीश्रीमतीअंजलीयादवकेमध्य
08.12.2015
दिनांक मेंहुएअनुष्ठापितविवाहकोआजनिर्णयदिनांक

सेविघटितकियाजाताहै।
2. -
वादीएवंप्रतिवादिनीआजदिनांकसेपति पत्नीनहींरहेंगे।
3. -
उभयपक्षअपना अपनावादव्ययस्वंयवहनकरेंगे।उभयपक्षको
”
डिकीकीप्रति निःशुल्कप्रदानकीजावे।

Page No.9 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dt. 21.12.2023,
the present appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:-
(i) That, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family
Court is bad in law and facts and thus liable to be set-aside and the
suit of the respondent deserves to be dismissed.
(ii) That, the respondent has never filed an application for
restitution of conjugal right, which prima-facie shows that he was
not interested to take the appellant back.
(iii) That, a case under Section 498-A of IPC was registered at
Mahila Thana because the respondent was not willing to take the
appellant with him.
(iv) That, lodging of FIR under Section 498-A of IPC as well as
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not cruelty against the
family members of the respondent, because they have not been
acquitted from the said charges, indeed, they were facing trial. Yet,
learned trial Court has granted decree of divorce to the respondent
on the ground of “cruelty”, which is bad, arbitrary and illegal. Even
otherwise, the offences under Section 498-A of IPC is compoundable
and the respondent has never tried to manage his matrimonial life.
(v) That, the respondent alleged that the appellant has stated
during the counseling that she wants to reside separately from his
family, but the real fact is that the appellant wants to taken care of
herself and her child and for which she has requested the respondent
for several time, but the same was denied by the respondent and after

Page No.10 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
bornout of the child, the appellant was deserted by the respondent to
live as a destitute life.
-:Proceedings before the Appellate Court:-
16. 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:-
17. In order to dispose of this First Appeal, the following questions are to
be considered:-
(i) Whether the Family Court is justified in allowing the suit
filed by the respondent/plaintiff Husband for grant of
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty ?
(ii) Whether the respondent/plaintiff husband is entitled
for decree of divorce as claimed?
-:Argument of the Appellant/Defendant- Smt. Anjali
Yadav :-
18. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant wife submits that the
learned Family Court has erred in granting a decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty without properly appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case.
19. It is further contended that the respondent/plaintiff husband never
sought restitution of conjugal rights, indicating his own

Page No.11 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
unwillingness to resume matrimonial life. The complaint under
Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
was lodged only because the respondent/plaintiff husband was
unwilling to take the appellant/defendant wife back to the
matrimonial home, and mere lodging of such a complaint,
particularly when the criminal proceedings are still pending and the
respondent/plaintiff and his family members have not been
acquitted, cannot constitute cruelty. It is further submitted that the
appellant/defendant wife never intended to live separately but had
only sought proper care and security for herself and her child,
whereas it was the respondent who deserted her after the child's
birth. The impugned judgment and decree, therefore, deserve to be
set aside.
-: Argument of the Respondent /Plaintiff- Rahul Yadav:-
20. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff husband 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 decreed the suit filed
by the respondent/plaintiff for grant of divorce on the ground of
cruelty. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
-:Analysis of the Appellate Court:-
Points for determination No (i) and (ii).

Page No.12 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
21. To avoid repetition of the evidence, both the questions are taken up
together for consideration.
22. The learned Family Court has examined the present case in the light
of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.
Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 , Praveen Mehta v.
Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya
Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 . The present matrimonial dispute is
founded on the ground of “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
23. Since the expression “cruelty” has not been defined under the Act,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through various judicial
pronouncements, has explained its meaning and the circumstances
in which matrimonial conduct may constitute cruelty. In Samar
Ghosh (supra) , while relying upon its earlier decisions, including
V. Bhagat (supra) and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , (2006)
4 SCC 558 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 101, illustrated
certain instances of human conduct which may amount to cruelty.
The relevant observations are reproduced herein below:
“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.

Page No.13 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
(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.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal

Page No.14 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
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.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any

Page No.15 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
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.”
24. On examination of the evidence available on record in the light of the
aforesaid principles, it emerges that the respondent/plaintiff
husband , his father and his brother have consistently deposed
against the appellant/defendant wife. Nothing material has emerged
in their cross-examination to indicate that their testimony is
unreliable or that they have falsely deposed against her.
25. Of particular significance is the fact that, even if the other allegations
and circumstances are left aside for the sake of argument, the
suggestions put by the appellant/defendant wife to her husband,
respondent/plaintiff Rahul Yadav (PW-1) , during his cross-
examination in paragraph 22, alleging that he had illicit relations

Page No.16 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
with his sister-in-law and that he was seen with her in an
objectionable position, are themselves relevant for consideration.
26. Such serious allegations concerning the character and fidelity of
one's spouse, when made without any foundation, may themselves
constitute mental cruelty. In the present case, no basis for making
such allegations is forthcoming from the evidence on record. These
suggestions also indicate the nature of the matrimonial discord and
the conduct attributed to the appellant/defendant wife.
27. The legal position regarding allegations affecting the character of a
spouse also deserves consideration. In Samar Ghosh(supra) and
the principles laid down in the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it has been recognized that making reckless and
baseless allegations concerning the character and fidelity of a spouse
may cause serious mental pain and suffering and may, depending
upon the facts and circumstances, constitute mental cruelty.
28. In the present case, the allegations regarding illicit relations with the
sister-in-law were made without any material foundation. Such
allegations cannot be treated as ordinary matrimonial disagreements.
29. More importantly, the statements of the appellant/defendant wife
Aanjali Yadav (DW-1) and her father Chandrabhushan Yadav
(DW-2) in their cross-examination also require consideration. From
paragraphs 18 and 19 of the cross-examination of the
appellant/defendant wife Aanjali Yadav (DW-1) read with the last

Page No.17 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
line of paragraph 18 of the cross-examination of her father
Chandrabhushan Yadav (DW-2) , it emerges that after the
marriage, the appellant/wife went to her parental home on several
occasions and, despite efforts made to bring her back, she did not
return. It also emerges that the wife desired to reside with the
husband at the place where he was employed, rather than at the
matrimonial home.
30. Similarly, the admissions made by the appellant/defendant wife
Aanjali Yadav (DW-1) in paragraph 21 of her cross-examination
and by her father Chandrabhushan Yadav (DW-2) in paragraph
19 of his cross-examination establish that the respondent/husband
used to take care of her and had borne the expenses of her treatment
and delivery. He had also arranged for her treatment at Sector-9
Hospital. These circumstances are relevant while examining the
appellant/defendant wife’s allegation that the respondent/plaintiff
husband had neglected her and failed to take care of her.
31. Further, the admissions made by the appellant/defendant wife in
paragraphs 23, 25 and 34 of her cross-examination indicate that she
herself was not willing to accompany her husband and had also
refused to go with him during the counselling proceedings. These
admissions are contrary to the stand taken by her in the appeal. On
an overall consideration of her testimony, it emerges that allegations
concerning the character of her husband were made by her, that she
herself had gone to her parental home and that she did not return

Page No.18 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
despite repeated efforts made by the respondent/plaintiff husband to
take her back.
32. Thus, the aforesaid circumstances, when considered cumulatively
and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforementioned decisions, indicate that the matrimonial
discord was not merely a consequence of ordinary differences
between the parties. The conduct and allegations of the
appellant/defendant wife, particularly the baseless allegations
concerning the character of her husband, coupled with her
unwillingness to resume cohabitation despite efforts made by him,
have to be considered in their proper perspective. The learned Family
Court has rightly appreciated these circumstances while holding that
the respondent/plaintiff husband was subjected to mental cruelty.
33. Consequently, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the
findings recorded by the learned Family Court warranting
interference in the appellate jurisdiction. The ground of “cruelty”
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is
established.
-:Final Conclusion:-
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the learned
Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and committed no
illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned judgment and decree.
The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly . The
dismissed

Page No.19 of 19
IN
FA(MAT)-33-2024
impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court
are hereby affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
35. A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/- sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
Judge Judge

s@if