It is most vital to note that while ruling on a most significant legal point pertaining to divorce granted over concealment of wife’s inability to conceive, the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled A v. B in FA(MAT) No. 63 of 2022 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:CGHC:59613-DB that was reserved on 17.09.2025 and then finally pronounced on 09.12.2025 after perusing the facts of the case and the material on record deemed it fit to upheld the grant of divorce to the husband in a case where the wife concealed the most glaring fact of her inability to conceive.
It must be noted that the Bilaspur High Court has also asked the husband to pay Rs 5 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife. It must be also taken into account that the Chhattisgarh High Court was considering an appeal that had challenged the judgment of the Family Court, which had granted a decree of civil suit that had been filed by the respondent/applicant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey for a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of herself and Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.03.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 48A/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has granted decree of the civil suit filed by the respondent/applicant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating briefly on the facts of the case stating that:
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 05.06.2015 at Khairagarh according to Hindu rituals. The respondent/applicant preferred an application under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant/non-applicant seeking decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of getting disclosure of the fact that the appellant is not getting her menstrual discharge.
As per the application filed by the respondent/applicant, the financial condition of the appellant’s father was not good at the time of marriage, and the respondent is the one who bore the entire expenses of the marriage. At the time of marriage, in the family of respondent, his old parents were there, his two nephews and two nieces used to study in his house and their responsibility was upon the respondent/applicant.
The appellant behaved well with the respondent for the initial two months of their marriage, then she used to nettle him by saying that you have opened orphanage, you have taken contract of all people and she told him that she will not cook food to them, in this way the appellant used to have quarrel with the respondent and further she misbehaves with the parents of the respondent as she used to have dispute with them. Despite several efforts by the respondent to make his wife/appellant understand, she did not change her behaviour and she kept her disrespectful behaviour towards the parents of the respondent.
The respondent used to look after the well-being of the appellant/wife, one day, the appellant apprised the respondent that she had a skip in her menstrual cycle, the respondent was so blissful as he thought that it was a good news and he took his wife/appellant for her medical checkup to Doctor Sarita Dubey who was gynecologist, then the appellant told Doctor that she is not getting her menstrual cycle since 10 years. Thereafter, the mother of the appellant went to Doctor Gulati for getting medical checkup of her daughter and the doctor told her that there is serious issue in the uterus of the appellant/non-applicant that is why there is trouble in having children, then the respondent asked her that why she married him, to which she replied that if she had told him the truth before, he would have said no, so now he has to bear her.
As per the application under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it is further stated by the respondent/applicant that as he did not give the said Rs. 40,000/- to the brother of the appellant/non-applicant, the appellant/non-applicant stopped having food and stopped talking to him, as such he transferred Rs. 40,000/- to the account of his wife/appellant’s brother. The appellant was well aware of the fact before her marriage with the respondent/applicant that she is unable to conceive, yet she concealed this fact and married the respondent/applicant.
The appellant/non-applicant is quarrelsome person and stubborn as well and she subjected the respondent/applicant and his family members to mental cruelty. In the month of August, 2016 the respondent/applicant took his father to Dr. Shashank Gupta for treatment, during this time, the appellant/non-applicant tortured the mother, nieces and nephew of the respondent/non-applicant.
The father of the respondent/non- applicant was died on 17.09.2016 and after the completion of Terahvin, the appellant/non-applicant called her brother and went to her parental home. When the respondent/applicant returned from his work, at that time he noticed that the appellant/non-applicant has taken all her clothes, ornaments and cash amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs which was kept in almirah and she was not there in the house. Later, the respondent/applicant came to know from his family members that the appellant/non-applicant left for her parental home.
Thereafter, the respondent/applicant went to parental home of his wife to bring back her, however he had dispute with the appellant’s brother, mother and aunt and they threatened him by saying that they will send his entire family to jail, the respondent/applicant headed back to his home to escape from the dispute. In this way, the appellant/non-applicant is residing in her parental home. However, no marital relationship has been established between the appellant/non-applicant and the respondent/applicant for the last one year, as such on these grounds, the respondent/applicant prayed before the Family Court for decree of dissolution of marriage.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 3 that:
The appellant/non-applicant being served notice of the Family Court appeared and filed her reply to the application in which she has clearly mentioned that the entire marriage expenditure was borne by her father and the entire dowry articles as per the demand of the in-laws including husband was given by her father, in which Double Bed, Maharaja Sofa, Dining Table, Washing Machine, LED, AC, Fridge, Almirah, Dressing Table etc. and golden and silver ornaments were given as dowry. It was further stated that the entire contents written in para 4 of the application of the respondent/applicant was false and fabricated and she was subjected to cruelty as she was often called as barren woman.
She further mentioned in her reply that she was taking care of all the family members in her matrimonial house and after marrying the respondent/applicant, the maid was released from work and the entire work load was on the shoulder of the appellant/non-applicant. It was specifically denied by the appellant/non-applicant regarding her menstrual problem and she was taken to Dr. Sarita on the ground that her husband wants child at the earliest and further stated that as per the opinion of the Dr. Gulati, it was told that the womb (Bachchedani) was closed due to which there is difficulty in pregnancy then her husband asked to the doctor to give a test tube baby and the doctor had refused him by saying that the problem is temporary and Dr. Gulati prescribed her some medicine and advised for Yoga.
The contentions of the entire paragraphs of the application filed by the respondent/applicant was denied and in reply to para 6 it was specifically mentioned that the brother of the appellant/non-applicant was appointed as a worker in the shop of the respondent/husband by saying that he will be paying a sum of Rs. 15,000 to him, however he did not pay him for a period of four months, as such he returned to his house.
It was further mentioned that the allegations were false and fabricated and the doctor has clearly opined that the problem is temporary and prescribed some medicines, but on false and fabricated grounds an application was filed though she is residing in her matrimonial house as she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws including husband. On the basis of aforesaid submission the appellant/non-applicant prayed before the learned Family Court to dismiss the claim of the respondent/applicant.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 8 that:
Before the learned Family Court it is an admitted position in this case that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.06.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Village- Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.).”
Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
The appellant/wife (DW/01) admitted this suggestion that her treatment was going on and she has stated that after taking medications, she has become capable of having a child and she admitted this suggestion that she has not produced any Doctor Certificate in this regard. Both the parties have stated that since 2016 they are living separately.”
Equally significant is what is then propounded in para 12 holding that:
Learned Family Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that issues No. 1 and 3 are in favour of the respondent/husband and rightly passed the decree of divorce in favour of him. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment passed by learned Family Court.”
No less significant is what is then directed and held in para 13 that:
As regards permanent alimony, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the socio-economic status of the parties and looking to the guideline of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sau.Jiya vs. Kuldeep reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213, we find that awarding an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as a one time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice. This amount shall cover all the pending and future claims of the appellant against the respondent/husband. The respondent/husband is, therefore, directed to pay the said amount as permanent alimony to the appellant/wife within a period of four months from today.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes in para 14 by directing and holding in para 14 that:
A decree be drawn up accordingly.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh
