Marriage Beyond Repair After 11 Years of Conflict | Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Decree, Cites Pattern of Cruelty and Litigative Harassment
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput upheld the Family Court's decree dissolving the marriage between the parties, dismissing the husband’s appeal seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Division Bench stated that the continuation of the marital relationship, strained by over eleven years of separation and mutual allegations, "would only lead to further animosity and litigation". The court affirmed the findings of the Family Court that the husband committed acts of mental cruelty against the wife, justifying the decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband’s appeal under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed on the same grounds.
The appeals arose out of a common judgment dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur. The appellant-husband, aged 39, had filed Civil Suit No.280-A/2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Conversely, the respondent-wife, aged 30 and serving as a Civil Judge, filed Civil Suit No.287-A/2016 under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage. Both suits were decided by a common judgment.
The couple was married on 14.05.2009 in village Jhalronda, District Janjgir-Champa according to Hindu rites. One son was born from the wedlock on 13.12.2011. In 2012, the wife was appointed as a Civil Judge Class-II and initially posted at Raigarh, later transferred to Dallirajhara, District Balod. Since February 2014, the parties had been living separately. The husband alleged that the wife deserted him without justifiable reason and denied him visitation rights to his son, which led him to seek restitution of conjugal rights.
The wife, in turn, alleged various instances of cruelty, including emotional and financial misconduct. She stated that the husband purchased a plot using her money but refused to hand over the property papers. The respondent further claimed that her husband misrepresented his employment and financial status before marriage and had a criminal background. She accused the husband and his family of persistent dowry-related harassment and interference in her professional duties after she joined judicial service.
The wife filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty, maintaining that the conduct of the husband made it impossible for her to continue in the marital relationship. She submitted that from the beginning of the marriage, the husband and his family were cruel, and after her judicial appointment, the interference increased.
The Family Court, after examining oral and documentary evidence, found in favor of the wife and granted her a decree of divorce. The husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The husband then appealed both decisions in FAM No.233/2018 and FAM No.92/2018 respectively.
In his appeal, the husband contended that the Family Court erred in its findings and that the decree of divorce lacked evidentiary support. He claimed that his complaints to police authorities and judicial institutions were legitimate exercises of his rights and should not be construed as cruelty. He also argued that the wife used her position to influence the proceedings and that he had filed a writ petition before the High Court regarding her interference in judicial matters.
The respondent-wife argued in response that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence and her claims of cruelty. She submitted that the repeated complaints and harassment affected her mental health and professional life, substantiating her claim under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Family Court had relied on several documents, including complaints filed by the husband (Ex. D-11, Ex. D-13, Ex. D-14) and orders in domestic violence proceedings (Ex. D-43). Both parties submitted extensive oral evidence, and cross-examinations revealed admissions and denials forming the basis of the court's factual findings.
The Division Bench of the High Court examined the entire evidentiary record and legal submissions. It recorded: "It is not disputed...that after marriage, respondent-wife was selected in judicial service in 2012" and "since February, 2014, both the parties are living separately."
The court found the wife’s allegations of mental and physical cruelty to be substantiated by evidence, noting: "The appellant-husband has also filed various complaints against the respondent-wife before the police authorities and High Court" and "the respondent-wife has also filed criminal case against the appellant-husband...including application under Domestic Violence Act."
Referring to the cross-examination of the appellant, the court observed: "He admitted in para 59...that he had made complaints against his wife/respondent and in-laws before various senior police officers in addition to his wife's department."
The Bench referenced Supreme Court judgements, including Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian, which held: "The appellant was engaged in a pattern of behavior that caused him immense mental and emotional distress...This included filing false and baseless criminal complaints...falls squarely within the definition of mental cruelty."
The judgment further quoted from Rakesh Raman v. Kavita: "The multiple court battles between them and the repeated failures in mediation and conciliation is at least testimony of this fact that no bond now survive between the couple, it is indeed a marriage which has broken down irretrievably."
The Division Bench agreed with the Family Court’s finding that continued marriage was unviable: "Continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties."
"The learned Family Court was fully justified in allowing the application of respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and dismissing the application of appellant-husband filed under Section 9 of of the Hindu Marriage Act."
The Division Bench affirmed the Family Court’s decision in both suits. It held: "We are of the opinion that the learned Family Court was fully justified in allowing the application of respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act..."
Accordingly, the Court stated: "Both the appeals being without any merit liable to be and are hereby dismissed."
It directed that: "Let a decree be drawn-up accordingly."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v.YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:23858-DB
Case Numbers: FAM No. 233 of 2018 and FAM No. 92 of 2018
Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
[Read/Download order]
