Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rashi vs Vishal on 16 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593
1 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
FIRST APPEAL No. 1056 of 2014
RASHI W/O VISHAL AWASTHI
Versus
VISHAL S/O ASHOK AWASTHI
..........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Appellant - wife is present in person along with Shri Sanjay P. Joshi -
Advocate.
Respondent - husband is present in person along with Shri Rishiraj
Trivedi - Advocate.
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 03/09/2025
Pronounced on : 16/09/2025
.............................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi The subject matter of this first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1984) preferred by the appellant - wife is judgment and decree dated 08.07.2014 passed in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 2 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 Hindu Marriage Case No.655 of 2010 by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore (MP), whereby petition filed under Section 13 (1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1955) by the respondent - husband has been allowed; and the marriage between the appellant - wife and respondent - husband has been dissolved.
2. It is not in dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.12.2003 as per Hindu customs and rituals; and out of their wedlock, one son Aditya and daughter Anushka were born.
3. Case of the respondent - husband as mentioned in the divorce petition has been that his wife - appellant has been of irascible and quarrelsome disposition, habitually engaging in disputes and exhibiting a short-tempered nature, thereby disturbing the peace and harmony of the household. She has been in persistent habit of deferring and neglecting her duties as wife and thereby failed to perform her marital obligations. Despite advice from the elders, she is late riser from bed and abstained from discharging domestic obligations. She referred his parents derogatorily as Budha & Budhi (old man and old woman) and referred him as impotent.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 3 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 3.1 Further case of the respondent - husband is that from the very beginning of marital life, the appellant - wife was picking up quarrels with him and his relatives. She was neither cooking food nor doing any household chores. She was threatening to get lodged him and his relatives in the Jail in false case of demand of dowry; and she was also threatening to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself. Just to maintain harmony in the family, the respondent - husband was separated from his family members. The appellant - wife persistently pressurized him to live with her parents as Ghar Jamai (domesticated son-in-law who stays at wife's parents in their home). Against his conscience for some time he lived as Ghar Jamai but as it was not acceptable to him therefore, he took rented premises and lived with the appellant - wife away from members of his family. Even after that the appellant - wife, being of petulant nature, was persistently picking up quarrels with the neighbours. Despite advice from elders the appellant did not mend her ways and no positive change came in her behaviour. Being continuously harassed, in the mid night of 29th and 30th of May, in utter frustration he consumed poison to end his life. He was admitted for treatment in Bombay Hospital by his parents. It has become impossible to live with her. He is still ready to keep children with him. On these allegations, he filed petition for dissolution of marriage. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 4 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014
4. The appellant - wife in written statement refuted all the allegations levelled against her in the petition. She alleged that the respondent - husband wants to accrue benefit of his own wrongs. He is having illicit relationship with some other women. Just to get rid of her and her children, he has filed the petition with frivolous allegations. It is the respondent - husband who maltreated her on the ground of not meeting demand of dowry. She was continuously subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondent. The respondent - husband was divested (Bedakhal) by his parents from their property due to his misdeeds. He has deserted her and her children. Attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison is also cooked up story, as the respondent
- husband had inadvertently swallowed pesticide at the place of medicine. On these submissions, the appellant - wife prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court raised as many as six issues having bearing on the controversy involved and affording opportunity to lead evidence and hearing the parties to the lis, passed the impugned judgment, concluding that the appellant - wife has meted out 'cruelty' to the respondent - husband, which has made it impossible for him to live with her, therefore, with these findings, dissolved the marriage on the ground Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 5 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 mentioned under Section 13 (1) (1-a) of the Act of 1955, which gives rise to this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant - wife submits that the learned Court below has misinterpreted the evidence and returned perverse findings. Mere trivial instances of married life have been exaggerated in recording the findings, that the appellant - wife has meted out 'cruelty' to the respondent - husband, which has brought marriage to naught. Respondent himself has deserted her and her children for no fault of their own and wants to wriggle out of the marital ties building a case of divorce on false grounds. On these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant - wife prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - husband submits that the learned Court below has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and rightly held that the appellant - wife has continuously maltreated him, which comes under 'cruelty', a ground for dissolution of marriage, as mentioned under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant - wife is living away from respondent - husband since last so many years; and the marriage is irretrievably broken down, therefore, prays for dismissing the appeal, as devoid of any substance.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 6 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014
8. Heard and considered rival submissions raised at Bar and perused the record.
9. It is not in dispute that appellant and respondent were married as per Hindu rights and customs on 14.12.2003 and out of this wedlock, daughter Anushka and son Aditya were born. It is also not in dispute that appellant - wife along with the aforesaid children is living in official accommodation allotted to the respondent - husband and he is living away from the company of appellant - wife and children since 29-30.05.2010.
10. Respondent has been granted decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) of HMA on the ground of cruelty meted out by the appellant - wife to him. Specific acts of cruelty which have found place in the petition are that appellant - wife is of irascible and quarrelsome disposition and after a month of entering into marriage started picking up disputes with parents of respondent - husband and humiliated them by using inappropriate words as Budha and Budhi. She was also picking up disputes with neighbours which was disturbing harmony in neighbourhood. She was not fulfilling domestic obligations. She used to rise late and not following instructions of parents in law and when they advised her, she became annoyed. She was also humiliating him by adducing as an ‗impotent'. She was also persistently threatening to set her ablaze by pouring Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 7 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 kerosene on her and falsely implicate him and her parents in a case of demand of dowry. She was also alleging falsely leveling allegations that he has illicit relations with other women. Being aggrieved and distressed by all these circumstances and misconduct of appellant - wife, he made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison in midnight of 29-30.05.2010. To support these allegations, respondent-husband has examined himself as PW-1 and her sister Neha Agrawal as PW-2. It is noteworthy that the allegations leveled against appellant-wife are that she was mal-treating and humiliating parents of respondent - husband, but they have not been examined before the Court to substantiate the allegations. Neha Agrawal (PW-2), sister of the respondent has made an unsuccessful attempt by way of her statement before the Court to support his brother respondent/husband, but the fact remains that from the date of celebration of marriage i.e. 14.12.2003 to May, 2010, near about 7 years appellant - wife lived in the company of respondent - husband and also gave birth to one daughter and one son mentioned herein-above which in itself reveals that unreasonable behavior of wife, if any, as alleged by respondent - husband was condoned by him as it being mere wear and tear of married life, therefore, the allegations raised in the petition in this regard cannot be a ground for granting divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) of HMA.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 8 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014
11. The respondent - husband Vishal (PW-1) by his statement before the Court has made an attempt to reiterate the allegations mentioned in the petition. He and his sister Neha Agrawal (PW-2) has underscored the incidents of making an attempt to commit suicide by respondent in the night of 29- 30.05.2010 as he was persistently meted out humiliation and mal-treatments at the hands of the appellant - wife. Both of the witnesses have deposed before the Court that the respondent - husband in utter frustration has consumed poison to get rid of humiliation and in support thereof, medical papers Ex. P/4 & P/5 issued from Bombay Hospital have been tendered in evidence. From perusal of the document (Ex.P/4), it is apparent, as mentioned in it that poisonous substance organo- phosperous pesticide was consumed accidently which in itself falsifies the statement of respondent - Vishal (PW-1) and Neha Agrawal (PW-2) that respondent - Vishal has consumed the poisonous substance in an attempt to end his life in utter frustration due cruel behavior of the appellant rather this document supports the appellant - wife (DW-2), who has deposed before the Court that due to inadvertence the respondent has consumed the poisonous substance and to make a ground against her, he has misused his own act of inadvertence in taking poisonous substance. If this allegation against appellant - wife was actually true then nothing prevented respondent - husband Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 9 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 to take criminal action against appellant - wife, but the same has not been done. Thus, the allegation that being under continuous mal-treatment from appellant side, respondent consumed poisonous substance is not inspiring confidence.
12. Respondent - husband has leveled allegations against appellant - wife that she is leveling false allegations on her of having illicit relationship with other women. In written statement appellant - wife has reiterated her allegations and in statement before the Court has not only made allegations, but has disclosed the names of two women with whom the respondent has allegedly developed illicit intimacy. Respondent - husband has not dared to bring any of these women before the Court to support his claim that he has no such relationship with them. Thus, when despite having ample opportunity to rebut the allegations, respondent-husband not done so by leading best evidence, it cannot be presumed that appellant-wife has leveled false allegations against the respondent - husband. It is undisputed fact that after 29-30.05.2010 respondent- husband has left company of appellant-wife and has never made any attempt to live with appellant-wife and his children, who have taken shelter in the official accommodation allotted to the respondent.
13. From perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that learned Family Court Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 10 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 right perspective and committed factual and legal error in arriving at conclusion that respondent-husband has succeeded in establishing the fact that appellant- wife has meted out cruelty to him of such a degree which entitles him for a decree of divorce.
14. Word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act of 1955. Indeed, it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The 'cruelty' may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. 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.
15. Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476 has reiterated that 'cruelty' in matrimonial cases may be of so many forms; relevant Paras 19 to 21 may be reproduced to elucidate the concept of 'cruelty' in matrimonial cases: -
―19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 11 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty.
20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety--it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon [(1966) 2 WLR 993 : (1966) 2 All ER 257 (CA)] held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed.
21. This Court is reminded of what was said by Lord Reid in Gollins v. Gollins [1964 AC 644 : (1963) 3 WLR 176 : (1963) 2 All ER 966 (HL)] about judging cruelty in matrimonial cases. The pertinent observations are : (AC p.
660) ―... 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 prior 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.
The aforesaid passage was quoted with approval by this Court in N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326] ‖.
16. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326, 338 : AIR 1975 SC 1534 : (1975) 3 SCR 967, 978] in para 32 observed as:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 12 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 ―The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an 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.‖
17. In case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, it has been held that "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‖ has been dealt with by the Apex Court. It has also been held that "The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty." It is to be seen whether the conduct of one of the spouse has been 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'. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental 'cruelty'. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 13 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that no uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance as to which type of behaviour constitutes mental cruelty. It depends upon the social status of the parties to the marriage, their sensitivity and upbringing. It has further been held by the Apex Court that the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. The fact which may not be deemed cruelty by one set of persons may be taken as such by the other set of persons. It is also well settled that mere trivial irritations, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 14 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-today life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
19. In case of Ramchander v. Ananta [(2015) 11 SCC 539] Ramchander v. Ananta, [(2015) 11 SCC 539] Supreme court in para 10 has held that cruelty can be inferred from the fact and circumstances:
―10. The expression ―cruelty‖ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case [Samar Ghosh v.Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511] this Court set out illustrative cases where inference of ―mental cruelty‖ can be drawn and they are only illustrative and not exhaustive.‖
20. Since the allegations leveled against the appellant-wife with regard to committing cruelty to the respondent - husband has not been substantiated by cogent evidence. No FIR has been lodged against appellant - wife for abetting respondent - husband to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance. In Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 16-09-2025 17:39:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26593 15 F.A. No. 1056 of 2014 view of the evidence as adduced on behalf of the appellant, it cannot be said that she has leveled baseless allegations against the husband if evidence available on record is taken as a whole; it makes apparent that it is the husband, who has abandoned appellant and children merely on frivolous grounds. It is well settled that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrongs and this finds place in Latin Maxim ―Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria‖.
21. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that learned Court below has committed legal error of law and fact in granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband. The judgment passed by the Court below is vulnerable and cannot find stamp approval from this Court.
22. Resultantly, this appeal has substance, succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is set aside. It is made clear that the order dated 29.04.2025 with regard to maintenance to appellant - wife and her children to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month will continue till it is modified or set aside by some competent Court.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 16-09-2025
17:39:03