Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce, Cites Wife’s ‘Paaltu Chooha’ Remark and Demand to Live Apart from In-Laws as Cruelty
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad has upheld a Family Court’s decree granting divorce to a husband whose wife had persistently pressed for living separately from his parents and disparaged him as a “paaltoo chooha” (pet rat) for obeying them. The Bench held that the wife’s prolonged desertion and such conduct amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Affirming the Family Court’s order, the Court directed the husband to pay ₹5,00,000 as permanent alimony in addition to the existing maintenance.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife married on 28 June 2009 according to Hindu rites. A son was born to them on 5 June 2010 and resides with the wife. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court at Raipur seeking dissolution of the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The husband alleged that the wife persistently demanded that he live separately from his parents, demeaned him by calling him a “paaltoo chooha” (pet rat) for obeying them, displayed aggressive behaviour, and once allegedly attempted to harm the fetus during pregnancy. He claimed that she left the matrimonial home on 24 August 2010 during the festival of Teej and did not return thereafter, apart from a brief period in 2011. He also produced text messages to support the allegation of cruelty.
The wife denied the allegations, contending that she was never accepted by her in-laws, was emotionally and financially neglected, and was subjected to abusive language and the husband’s intoxicated conduct. She stated that she had sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging the husband was unwilling to resume cohabitation.
Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. The husband’s father, brother, and uncle testified in support of his claims, while the wife examined herself and a defence witness. The Family Court decreed divorce on 23 August 2019 on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Aggrieved by this decision, the wife appealed to the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the findings of cruelty and desertion and seeking to set aside the decree.
The Court recorded that “credible oral evidence was adduced by the respondent in the form of his own testimony… corroborated by his father, brother, and uncle, all of whom confirmed the appellant’s hostile conduct.” The Court noted that the appellant “acknowledged having sent a text message, Exhibit P-7, in which she stated ‘if you leave your parents and stay with me, respond; otherwise don’t ask.’” The Bench held that this conduct “belies the claim of innocence and instead underscores mental cruelty, particularly in the context of Indian joint family values, where compelling a spouse to forsake his parents is held as cruelty.”
Regarding desertion, the Court observed that “there was no plausible justification offered by the appellant for her prolonged stay at her parental home after leaving the matrimonial abode on 24.08.2010, following the festival of Teej.” The judgment recorded that the appellant admitted she had not returned to the matrimonial home except for a short period in 2011, and thus, “as of the filing date of the petition (21.04.2016), the appellant had deserted the respondent continuously for well over two years, satisfying the statutory threshold for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib).”
On the appellant’s plea regarding her petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court stated: “No order on that petition was placed before the Family Court, and even if it had been, a pending application does not override established findings of cruelty and desertion.” The Bench found the Family Court’s findings neither perverse nor unsustainable, noting that “the oral testimonies of the respondent and his family, the documentary evidence of coercion, and the appellant’s own admissions through cross-examination validate the case of respondent.”
In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decree, stating: “In view of foregoing discussion, we conclude that the husband has proved his case for the grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and wife has failed to prove her case for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.”
“According to the affidavits, the appellant-wife is earning Rs. 46,941/- per month as a Teacher (Librarian) with the Government of Chhattisgarh, whereas the respondent-husband is earning Rs. 35,000/- per month as an Accountant at the Chhattisgarh State Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Raipur. The wife has the responsibility of looking after their son, Samarth Tamrakar, who is approximately 12 years old. She currently receives Rs. 1,000/- for her personal maintenance and Rs. 6,000/- for the maintenance of her son. Considering the overall circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.”
“The respondent shall pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The judgment and decree of the Family Court, Raipur dated 23.08.2019 are hereby affirmed. The marriage between the parties stands dissolved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. R. K. Kesharwani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. J. A. Lohani, Advocate and Mr. B. M. Roy, Advocate
Case Title: XXX vs YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:44905-DB
Case Number: FA (MAT) No. 10 of 2019
Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
