Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal filed by the wife against the judgment whereby the Family Court granted divorce decree in favour of the husband under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), the Division Bench of Rajani Dubey* and Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment, holding that the Family Court had rightly ruled in favour of the husband.
Background
The parties got married in 2015 as per Hindu customs and rituals.
The husband alleged that after two months of marriage, the wife started misbehaving and quarrelling with him and his family. When the wife missed a menstrual cycle, the husband took her to a gynaecologist who informed him that the wife had not been menstruating for the last 10 years. A second doctor stated that the wife had a medical issue with her uterus, which hindered hr ability to bear children. Upon being questioned by the husband, the wife admitted to concealing her health condition. In 2016, the wife went to her parental home with allegedly all her clothes, ornaments, and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash and refused to come back.
Aggrieved, the husband applied Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground that the wife was not menstruating, i.e., being infertile.
The wife alleged that her father paid for the entire marriage expenditure, dowry articles as per the demand of the husband’s family, namely a double bed, a maharaja sofa, a dining table, a washing machine, an LED TV, an AC, a fridge, an almirah, a dressing table, and gold and silver ornaments. She alleged that she was taking care of everyone in the matrimonial home, and the house help was removed from service, so she had to perform all household chores alone. The wife also denied the allegations that she hid her infertility from her husband and claimed that when she was taken to a doctor, she was told that the womb was closed, due to which there was difficulty in conceiving, but the problem was temporary. Despite the doctor prescribing medicines, she claimed that her husband and in-laws subjected her to cruelty.
The Family Court ultimately granted the decree of divorce in favour of the husband. Hence, the present appeal.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the Family Court found that the wife had committed cruelty with the husband and had not maintained marital relations with him. Thus, the divorce was liable to be granted.
The Court further noted that the wife admitted in her written statement and oral testimony that after taking medication, she had become capable of bearing children. She also admitted that she had not produced any doctor’s certificate in this regard.
Thus, the Court held that the Family Court had rightly passed the decree of divorce in favour of the husband and there was no illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned judgment.
Regarding alimony, the Court held that payment of a one-time settlement of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the wife was sufficient to meet the ends of justice and for equity. This amount shall cover all the pending and future claims of the wife against the husband. The husband was directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the wife within four months. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on the guideline provided by the Supreme Court in Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213.
[H v. B, FA(MAT) No. 63 of 2022, decided on 09-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajani Dubey
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Chandrakaditya Pandey and Dharmesh Shrivastava