Station Master's Heated Exchange With Wife Sends Train To Maoist-Affected Region: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Divorce For Cruelty

The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently granted divorce to a station master-husband against his wife on the ground of 'cruelty' as the latter not only raised severe allegations on the character of the former but also her casual approach towards her on-duty husband led a goods train to a prohibited maoist-affected region.

Setting aside the order of the Family Court, which denied divorce to the appellant-husband, the Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held that making severe allegations against the appellant and his relatives for dowry as well as physical and mental torture by the respondent-wife so also assailing the character of the appellant amounts to cruelty.

Factual Background

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 12.10.2011 according to Hindu rituals and customs. The appellant belonged to Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh and the respondent hailed from Durg, Chhattisgarh. The appellant was working as a Station Master with the East Coast Railway at Vishakhapatnam.

After a year of marriage, i.e. from 12.10.2012, the couple started living separately and subsequently, the appellant filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court, Vishakhapatnam. However, as per the order of the Supreme Court, the divorce proceeding was transferred to Durg, Chhattisgarh.

The Family Court, Durg, after taking into account the evidence of both the sides, testimony of witnesses and arguments, held that the appellant-husband failed to prove that his respondent-wife meted out any treatment to him which would amount to mental or physical cruelty.

Contentions for Parties

It was argued on behalf of the appellant-husband that from the very day of marriage reception, the respondent-wife was not happy with the marriage and she also informed him about her romantic relationship with the librarian of her Engineering College and she also admitted to have sexual relationship with him.

It was further submitted that instead of having marital relationship with the appellant, the respondent used to talk with her paramour over phone and also used to make fun of the appellant. Furthermore, she refrained from observing any marital obligation and frequently quarreled with him over petty issues.

The counsel for the appellant gave an instance of marital disturbance as a result of which the appellant faulted in discharging his professional obligations properly. On 22.03.2012, the wife started quarrelling with the husband over phone while he was on duty. The husband retorted by saying that he will talk to her after returning from work and said 'OK'.

It is stated that particular utterance of the word 'OK' made the other on-duty Station Master to believe that the appellant has cleared the route for a goods train and accordingly, he gave 'green signal' to the train which led it to a maoist-affected region, which was a prohibited area for trains between 10 PM to 6 AM.

Above all, it was submitted that the wife came with her parents and some hired-goondas and threatened him at his workplace. Also, she used to give mental harassment to the husband alleging that he had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. Accordingly, it was argued that the Family Court committed an error by denying him divorce.

On the other side, the respondent-wife denied such allegations of cruelty; rather she stated that the appellant-husband and his relatives used to torture her by demanding dowry. She further alleged that the appellant had extra-marital affair with his sister-in-law which caused grave mental agony to her. Being aggrieved by cruel treatment meted out to her, she had registered an FIR against the appellant and his relatives under Section 498-A, IPC.

High Court's Observations

After perusing the case records, the Court found that after the appellant-husband filed the petition for divorce, the respondent-wife filed a case against him and his relatives under Section 498-A, IPC in a planned manner.

So far as the respondent threatening the appellant at his workplace is concerned, a senior employee of the appellant supported such allegation levelled by the appellant against the respondent. He also stated about the unfortunate incident which resulted in a goods-train reaching a maoist-affected area during the prohibited time.

The Court also verified the tickets purchased by the appellant and opined that the appellant in fact took the respondent to Bengaluru for her amusement and that shows that he was deeply in love with her and therefore, the allegations levelled by the respondent regarding dowry seems to be incorrect.

The Bench held that no evidence was put forward by the respondent to prove that the appellant indeed had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. It also underlined that during the marriage of the parties, the elder brother and the sister-in-law of the husband acted as father and mother for observing the rituals. Therefore, in absence of any evidence, it is baseless to hold that the appellant had extra-marital relationship with his sister-in-law.

It referred to a range of precedents, including the ones in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Narendra v. K. Meena, to hold that fake allegations made by wife against husband assailing his character amounts to mental cruelty.

Resultantly, considering all the above relevant facts and circumstances, the Court was of the view that the acts of the respondent-wife amount to cruelty against the appellant-husband and therefore, the Family Court faulted in not granting divorce to the appellant. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court was set aside, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband.

Case Title: X v. Y

Case No: FA (MAT) No. 01 of 2020

Date of Order: November 05, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order