Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Sharma vs Smt. Neha Pathak on 20 March, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
DB :- HON'BLE SHRI ANAND PATHAK &
HON'BLE SHRI HIRDESH, JJ
ON 20th OF MARCH, 2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.163 OF 2020
ASHISH SHARMA
Versus
SMT. NEHA PATHAK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Khedkar- learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Rishabh Singh
Chauhan- learned counsel for appellant-husband.
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava- learned counsel for respondent-wife.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Hirdesh, J:-
The instant first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act
(hereinafter it would be referred to as ” HM Act”), has been filed by appellant-
husband challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 20/12/2019
passed by First Additional District Judge, Joura District Morena (M.P.) in
RCSHM No. 1189/2014, whereby the application filed by the appellant-husband
(hereinafter it would be referred to as “Husband”)under Section 13 of HM Act
seeking a decree of divorce, has been rejected.
(2) It is not in dispute that marriage of appellant-husband was solemnized
with respondent-wife (hereinafter it would be referred to as ”Wife”) on
09/02/2010 at Gwalior in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their
wedlock, a son was born in the year 2012.
(3) In brief, the facts giving rise to present appeal are that, one petition under
2Section 13 of HM Act has been filed by husband in which, it has been stated
that after marriage, during the wedding night, his wife taunted him about being
unemployed and refused to have intercourse with him. On that time, husband
avoided creating a scene in front of the guests present in the house. He told his
friends about this incident. His wife being a resident of Gwalior metropolitan
city and having studied at a prestigious college, but husband who had studied in
District Morena, as a rustic, she treats him as duffer. Her wife constantly
harassed and quarrel with him when he forbade her from talking to her male
friends in Gwalior. Her wife did not give any importance to family members of
her husband and want to live in a dream world which was written by her in her
diary. She used to abuse him. Appellant-husband assured before trial Court that
at the time of evidence, he will present the diary and the CD of abusive talk on
the phone with him. After two months of marriage, she refused to do household
work and failed to do her duty. Grandmother always makes her understand but
she also ill-treated with grandmother, therefore, she has gone to Gwalior with
her father.
(4) When her father went to bring her, she came home on the condition that
grandmother would not live with her which was accepted by her father and
grandmother, therefore, she went to live with his father at his duty station at
Lahar, District Bhind where she stayed till the end. Appellant’s-husband elder
sister got married on 16/02/2010 and his father and grandmother lived separately
with him at Gwalior. Therefore, he felt lonely and depressed. And in the
meantime, she got pregnant; in spite of it, she did not change her behaviour. Her
wife did not cook food etc. and always scolded and also trying to hit the house
servant. Due to which, his servant was also mentally affected by her terror. When
appellant-husband told his father about this situation, his father tried to talk with
him and respondent-wife. In the meantime, respondent-wife became pregnant,
but even she did not change her behaviour and she started pressuring appellant
to sell his father’s property as well as ancestral property for the sake of unborn
3child’s future. She wanted to sell the property because she wants to live a
luxurious life. It was further averred that due to misbehavior of respondent-wife,
sister of appellant-husband used to come only for a day or two during festivals
because her wife behaved very rudely with her. She went to her parental house
on 19/07/2012. When appellant-husband and his father went to bring her back,
she and her father abused them and thereafter they returned home saddened. On
17/12/2012, when a child was born in Gwalior, he, his father and other relatives
went to meet her, but her wife did not speak to them and did not allow to see
newly born child.
(5) On 19/01/2013, when grandmother of appellant-husband passed away,
then her wife and his family came for a hour, did not speak to him and left for
Gwalior on the ground of illness and did not attend final rites of his
grandmother. When appellant asked his father for share of property for the peace
of family, as condition made by his wife, his father handed over his entire
ancestral property (in the form of house and land) situated in Bilgaon, District
Morena. Due to distress, his father also published a notice in the Dainik Bhaskar
Newspaper on 07/04/2023 disowning him as his son. On 10/12/2013, at the time
of marriage of younger brother of appellant despite invitation, no one from
respondent-wife side attended the marriage because family of respondent was
not willing to maintain normal family relations in any way. Appellant went to
persuade and to reconcile his wife and her family, but she refused to come with
him.
(6) Thereafter, appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the HM Act on
13/01/2014 seeking restitution of conjugal rights wherein respondent agreed to
live with him after being persuaded and pressurized by her father’s relatives.
Thereafter, on 01/02/2014 appellant brought his wife back from Gwalior to his
residence Bilgaon, where he took care of her and their child. Father of
respondent used to visit Bilgaon occasionally. Sometime, he used to come with
group of friends and threatened him saying that he would ruin entire family of
4
appellant-husband if he would not fulfill the wishes of his daughter. This caused
him great mental distress.
(7) On 19/04/2014, in the absence of appellant, respondent left her
matrimonial home with her father taking all belonging jewellery and cash with
her and threatened that he would suffer for life due to not fulfilling her demands.
Appellant-husband received a notice under Section 9 of the HM Act, which was
sent by respondent-wife in which threat was given to appellant. Despite
receiving notice under section 9 of HM Act on 08/08/2014, instead of trying to
reconcile, respondent-wife registered a criminal case at Crime No. 581/2014
under section 498-A, 323, 294, 506-B of the IPC at police station City Kotwali,
Morena against appellant and his family members on 13/08/2014. Due to this,
entire family members of appellant-husband are in mental distress and minimum
hope of reconciliation and maintaining family relation was lost. There has been
no marital cohabitation between appellant and respondent since for the last two
years. Despite continuous efforts of appellant, respondent-wife has been living
separately from him since 19.04.2014 and even does not talk on phone. Even
when, appellant goes to meet his son, she does not talk to him or maintain
courtesy. Due to which, appellant-husband is facing unnecessary mental, social
and physical harassment. Appellant-husband has further alleged that on
19.04.2014, in his absence, without informing or seeking his permission,
respondent arbitrarily left her parental house with all jewellery and cash. When
appellant filed an application under Section 9 of HM Act, respondent sent a
false, fabricated and baseless notice through her Lawyer. After receiving the
notice under Section 9 of HM Act which was served by registered post on
08.08.2014 to the respondent, she made no attempt to have a happy and peaceful
life or to reconcile the matter. Thereafter, she filed a false FIR against him.
Furthermore, on scheduled hearing of Case No.02/2014 pending in the Court,
she did not appear. Hence, he prays for grant of divorce decree on the ground of
“cruelty”.
5
(8) Respondent-wife submitted her reply and denied all allegations made by
appellant-husband. She pleaded that her father spent Rs.22,00,000/- in her
wedding and all the goods, jewellry and money are in the possession of her
husband and her father-in-law. Before the disposal of the application filed by
appellant under Section 9 of HM Act, the appellant filed an application under
Section 13 of HM Act seeking decree of divorce and withdrew the previous
application filed under Section 9 of HM Act. Subsequently, respondent-wife
filed an application under Section 9 of HM Act in Morena, which is pending
consideration. She further submitted that she had tried to save her marital life,
but her husband is determined to obtain a decree of divorce on false grounds by
any means because he and his family are greedy for dowry. After the death of
mother and brother of respondent-wife, she became the sole heir to her father’s
property, therefore, her appellant-husband started harassing and torturing to grab
her father’s assets. Due to efforts of father of respondent-wife on 06.01.2014, a
panchayat was held in which in the presence of her father and some other
relatives, an agreement was made to keep the respondent-wife with him and not
to harass her. Thereafter, on 01.02.2014 appellant-husband brought her back
from Gwalior to Gandhi Colony, Morena and afterwards took her to his ancestral
home at Bilgaon which had been vacant for the past 25 years where there were
no electricity and water. During this time, appellant-husband resided in Gandhi
Colony, Morena. Due to severe inconveniences, health of newly born child got
deteriorated. Therefore, she took the child to her parental home. To save her
marital life, a legal notice was sent through Advocate on 30/07/2014 and
appellant-husband did not return then on 10/08/2014 after being persuaded by
some people appellant -husband took the respondent-wife Gandhi Colony
Morena. However, appellant-husband and his family continued to demand
dowry.
(9) On 13/08/2014, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. On the
same day, her father-in-law reached Gandhi Colony and threatened to kill her.
6
Due to which, she was compelled to register FIR in relation to Crime No.
581/2014 which is pending consideration. The relationship between appellant-
husband and respondent-wife occurred last on 12/08/2014. To avoid providing
maintenance to respondent-wife or to cause financial harm, appellant-husband
filed forged salary certificate claiming employment at Mangal College, Tahsil
Porsa, District Morena in the maintenance case. Respondent-wife further alleged
that appellant-husband and his family members due to their misconduct and
criminal tenancy determined to obtain a divorce decree from respondent-wife by
fabricating false and untrue evidence.
(10) On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court framed
issues and after taking evidence of both the parties vide impugned judgment and
decree dated 20.12.2019 rejected the application filed by appellant-husband
under Section 13 of HM Act seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of
”cruelty ”.
(11) Being dissatisfied, the instant first appeal has been filed by appellant-
wife.
(12) Learned Counsel for appellant contended that the Trial Court committed
an error in passing the impugned judgment and decree without going through
proper evidence and pleadings available on record. The findings arrived at by the
trial Court while framing and deciding the issue No.4 in regard to territorial
jurisdiction is contrary to law because of the fact that entire burden lies on the
appellant-husband to prove that the trial Court was having territorial jurisdiction
to hear the matter. Respondent has falsely registered dowry case as well as
domestic violence against appellant and his family members in which appellant
and his family members are acquitted and domestic violence case was dismissed.
While passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Family Court did
not take into consideration this aspect and wrongly decided Issue Nos.1 and 2
against appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be
set aside by allowing the present appeal.
7
(13) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-wife supported the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
(14) Heard Counsel for the parties at length and perused impugned judgment
and decree as well as evidence available on record.
(15) First question raised by appellant-husband that learned trial Court has
committed error in giving the finding that trial Court has no territorial
jurisdiction to hear the case.
(16) Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant has filed a divorce
petition before First Additional District Judge, Joura District Morena and
pleaded in his Para 24 that he resided with respondent-wife till 18.04.2024 at his
village- Bilgaon and respondent-wife left the house with her father (village-
Bilgaon) without giving any information. So, according to Section 19 of HM
Act, trial Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear this case.
(17) Learned counsel for respondent-wife submitted that respondent and
appellant had never resided at Vill.- Bilgaon. They casually resided at Vill.-
Bilgaon and not for all. Thereafter, they did not reside together at Vill.-Bilgaon.
Therefore, trial Court has rightly given the finding that trial Court has not any
territorial jurisdiction to hear this case.
(18) Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the judgments passed by Apex
Court in the cases of K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and Anr. 2002
SCC Online 859, K. Nanjappa (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. R.A. Hameed @ Ameersab
(Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. AIR 2015 SC 3389 and Priyadarshani Mohapatra v.
Lalmohan Mohapatra AIR 2018 ORISSA 31.
(19) In the case of Priyadarshani Mohapatra (supra) has held that territorial
jurisdiction over such places or temporary stay of couple cannot be treated as
competent Court for considering divorce petition. But, in present case, perusal of
the pleading of respondent as well as her statement recorded before the trial
Court, it is clear that both the parties used to reside at Vill.-Bilgaon not in a
temporary manner, but in a permanent manner.
8
(20) Section 19 of HM Act gave the provision for jurisdiction.
“19. Court to which petition shall be presented.- Every petition under
this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of
whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction–
(i) the marriage was solemnised, or
(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or
(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or
(21) In the present case, appellant filed a divorce petition before learned First
Additional District Judge, Joura District Morena that parties had last resided
together at village Bilgaon. In written statement, respondent-wife denied this
fact and stated that she has never resided at village Bilgaon with her husband.
She further stated in her written statement in Para 24 that she resided at village
Bilgaon alone. She never resided with her husband there to perform her marital
life.
(22) From the perusal of the pleadings of respondent-wife, it appears that she
impliedly admitted that she resided at village Bilgaon alone, but not with her
husband. Perusal of Ex.(P-10), which is statement of respondent-wife before trial
Court in which, she has stated in Para 2 that appellant-husband took her to his
parental residence at village Bilgaon instead of Gandhi Colony, Morena and she
resided there up to three months where appellant used to come to see her within
a gap of 8-15 days and she left village Bilgaon due to illness of her child. She
called her father at village Bilgaon and came Gwalior.
(23) So, it is clear from the pleadings of the respondent-wife and evidence
deposed by her before the trial Court (Ex.P-10) that appellant and respondent
had last resided at Vill.-Bilgaon. Therefore, trial Court has committed error in
giving finding that both the parties used to reside at Vill.-Bilgaon in casual
manner.
(24) So, in considered opinion of this Court, trial Court has committed error in
holding that trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. Therefore,
finding of the trial Court is not correct in the eyes of law. So, finding of trial
9
court in this regard is set aside and in the considered opinion of this Court, trial
Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
(25) Now, main question for determination whether husband is entitled to
get decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty or not?
(26) Concept of ”mental cruelty” has been elaborately discussed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Mrs. Sucheta
Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 whereby, the relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced as under:-
”The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes
cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its
effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is
not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a
person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that
effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one
person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an
individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under
another set of circumstances.”(1) The Court has to deal, not with an
ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the
particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one
will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if
they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may
help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures. As said by
Lord Reid in his speech in Gollins v. Gollins (2) ALL ER 966
“In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with the reasonable
man, as we are in cases of negligence. We are dealing with this
man and this woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we make
about them the better. In cruelty cases one can hardly ever even
start with a presumption that the parties are reasonable people,
because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both
the spouses think and behave as reasonable people.”
(27) The aforesaid judgment of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane (supra) still holds
the field and is source of wisdom time and again in respect of ”mental cruelty”. The
aforesaid decision was referred to with approval in the cases of Praveen Mehta Vs.
Inderjit Mehta AIR 2002 SC 2582, Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC
511, Manisha Tyagi Vs. Deepak Kumar (2020) 4 SCC 339, Vishwanath Agrawal
Vs.Sarla Viswanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 and U. Sree Vs. U.Srinivas (2013)
2 SCC 114.
10
(28) The term ”cruelty” as used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, cannot be defined
in given parameters and there cannot be a comprehensive definition of ”cruelty”
within which all kinds of cases of cruelty can be covered and each case has to be
considered depending upon its own unique factual circumstances. In the case of
Gurbux Singh vs. Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that the matrimonial life should be assessed as a whole and persistent ill-
conduct over a fairly long of time would amount to cruelty and further held that the
ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one
party finds its extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount
to mental cruelty.
(29) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs)
(1994) 1 SCC 33 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be
defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and
suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other
words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be
expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other
party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to
the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to
the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the
possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already
living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither
possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may
not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case
having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of
accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they
were made.
(30) Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya
Ghosh (2007)4 SCC 511, has enumerated the illustrative instances of human
11
behaviour which may be relevant for dealing with cases of ”mental cruelty”:-
“No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet
we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental
cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only
illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties,
acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible
for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad
parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) ** ** **
(iii) ** ** **
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep
anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment
calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one
spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other
spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or
apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) ** ** **
(viii) ** ** **
(ix) ** ** **
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few
isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.
The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where
the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts
and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely
difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental
cruelty.
(xi) ** ** **
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or
valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) ** ** **
(xiv)Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a
legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard
for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it
may lead to mental cruelty.
12
(31) Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita
(2014) 16 SCC 34, in Para 7 has held that filing of the false complaint against the
husband and his family members constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act, 1955.
(32) Similarly, in the case of Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvraj (2020) 3 SCC 786, it
has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it cannot be doubted that in an
appropriate case, the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demands or such other
allegations, made the husband and his family members exposed to criminal
litigation. Ultimately, if it is found that such allegations were unwarranted and
without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to
allege the mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance,
if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is
tendered before the original Court to allege mental cruelty, it could well be
appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.
(33) Further, the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kumar vs. Julmidevi (2010) 4
SCC 476 has categorically held that ”reckless, false and defamatory allegations
against the husband and family members would have an effect of lowering their
reputation in the eyes of the society and it amounts to cruelty. In these
circumstances, we find that the appeal is well founded and deserves to be allowed.
We unequivocally find that the respondent wife had filed a false criminal complaint,
and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
(34) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa
(2013) 5 SCC 226 has held that spouse can cause mental cruelty by filing
complaints or by initiating number of judicial proceedings.
(35) It is equally well-settled in law that lodging of false complaint amounts to
cruelty {See: (2014)7 SCC Malathi Vs. B.B. Ravi, (2013) 5 SCC 226 K. Shrinivas
Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2014) 16 SCC 34 K. Shrinivas Vs. Ku. Sunita and AIR 2003
MP 271 Johnson M. Joseph alias Shajoo Vs. Smt. Aneeta Jhonson)}
(36) In case of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja AIR 2017 SC2138 the legal
position as to when a false complaint would amount to cruelty was also examined,
13
as below :
“11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty
will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the
wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her
husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely
have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers.
Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable
reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on
the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a
ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the
meaning of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (For short the Act).
However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then
there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse
levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act
of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be
false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband
along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and
assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was
the complaint false but also the injuries were self-inflicted by the
wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under
section 182 IPC”.
(37) Further, the Supreme Court in Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela
Rani (2020) 18 SCC 247 has observed that when a prosecution was launched
against the husband on a complaint made by the wife u/s 498-A of IPC making
serious allegations in which the husband and his family members were constrained
to undergo trial which ultimately resulted into acquittal, then in such case, it cannot
be accepted that no cruelty was meted out on the husband, therefore, he can make a
ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
(38) In the case at hand, on perusal of the evidence of both husband and wife
and their witnesses, it is apparent that marriage of both the parties was
solemnized on 09.02.2010 at Gwalior. Wife was living at her matrimonial home
with her husband till 2014 and since then, she is living separately at her parental
home. So far as allegation of wife that she was subjected to harassment for
demand of dowry and assaulted by her husband and her in-laws for which, she
has prosecuted offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294 and 506 of
IPC in relation to Crime No.581/2014. Due to cruel behaviour and attitude of her
14
husband and in laws towards her, she is unable to discharge her marital duties. It
appears that husband and his family members were subjected to torture
physically and mentally at the behest of respondent-wife and subsequently
criminal case prosecuted against her husband as well as in-laws which resulted
in acquittal as the wife has utterly failed to prove the ingredients either under
Section 498-A of IPC or Sections 323, 294 and 506 of IPC. Respondent-wife
filed an appeal before VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena which was also
rejected. She also filed a case regarding Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act against her husband and father-in-law, which was also dismissed
by concerned Court. It amounts to mental cruelty by respondent-wife against
appellant-husband.
(39) Therefore, husband was able to prove the fact that he was subjected to
cruelty by his wife and she further deserted him without any valid or lawful
reason thus, cruelty by way of false allegations is duly established. They are
living separately for the last more than ten years. Therefore, in the backdrop of
fact that the marriage between them did not last for more than five years and
both of them have been living separately for the last over ten years, apparently
marriage is irretrievable, as love is lost and emotions are dried up. There is no
possibility of any reconciliation between the parties. There is no hope about
cohabitation between them. Matrimonial bond has been completely ruptured
beyond repair. It has become impossible to reunite parties. Marriage is totally
unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation. After a long period of more
than ten years, no useful or fruitful purpose could be served to drag such
relationship of respondent and appellant as husband and wife any further. Both
the parties have failed to establish their marital relationship. Thus, the marriage
irretrievably broken-down due to efflux of time. Since the relationship of
appellant and husband must end as its continuation is causing cruelty either on
the parties, therefore, long separation, absence of cohabitation, complete
breakdown of all meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between appellant
15
and respondent has to be read as ”cruelty”. Where marital relationship between
appellant and respondent has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long
separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case, husband and
wife are living separately for the last more than ten years), then continuation
of such marriage would only mean giving sanction to cruelty with each is
inflicting on the other.
(40) In view of foregoing discussion, the application filed by appellant-
husband under Section 13 of HM Act seeking decree of divorce on the ground of
“cruelty” deserves to be and stands allowed. First appeal No.163/2020 filed by
appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by
First Additional District Judge, Joura, Morena in RCSHM No.1189/2014 is
allowed by setting aside the same.
(41) A decree of divorce be drawn accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prachi/VJ
VIJAY
Digitally signed by VIJAY TRIPATHI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=663cb09dd950bfc3ea7ed
TRIPA
4f02d97ddae5364f1d4b042dbc599
21b76e812d2d6b, ou=GWALIOR
COURT,CID - 7022539,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
THI
serialNumber=58392d8c4e7c9693b
feeb5b46b3ca006f1127e89008952
bbec528ce4d82551bd, cn=VIJAY
TRIPATHI
Date: 2025.03.27 22:36:53 -07'00'
[ad_1]
Source link