Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajkumari Kaurav vs Jitendra Singh Kaurav on 10 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955
1 FA-751-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 751 of 2021
SMT. RAJKUMARI KAURAV
Versus
JITENDRA SINGH KAURAV
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra with Ms. Harshita Mishra- learned Counsel for appellant-
wife.
Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma- learned Counsel for respondent- husband.
Both the parties are present in person.
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh The instant First Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the appellant (wife), challenging the judgment and decree dated 28th September, 2021, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (hereinafter referred to as "the Family Court") in RCSHM No. 50 of 2017, whereby the petition filed by the respondent- husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed.
2. A few facts giving rise to the present appeal, as narrated therein, are that the marriage between the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife was solemnized on 17th February, 2012, at Village Badagaon No. 2, Tehsil Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 2 FA-751-2021 Lahar, District Bhind, according to Hindu rites and customs. It was pleaded by the respondent-husband in his divorce petition filed on 11.04.2017 that the appellant came to her matrimonial home on 18th February, 2012, and subsequently went to her parental house on 20th February, 2012, as per the customary ritual of the first visit. It was further pleaded that during the appellant's stay at her parental home, her father demanded financial assistance. Specifically, the respondent alleged that on 5th March, 2012, he transferred a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- from his Punjab National Bank account to an account in the State Bank of India, Alampur Branch, allegedly provided by the appellant's father. It was further pleaded that the appellant's father insisted upon the purchase of approximately five bighas of agricultural land near Badagaon No. 2 and made the appellant's return to the matrimonial home conditional upon the completion of this transaction. Consequently, on 12th April, 2012, a registered sale deed (Exhibit P-51) for five bighas of land was executed in favour of the respondent before the competent Sub- Registrar.
3. The appellant returned to the matrimonial home on 13th April, 2012, and resided there until 28th April, 2012, though the exact date is disputed between the parties. On 28th April, 2012, the respondent's father allegedly took her back to her parental home on the pretext that her mother was unwell. On 29th April, 2012, when the respondent went to bring the appellant back, it is alleged that she refused to accompany him unless the land purchased on 12th April, 2012, was transferred in her name. Subsequently, on 30th August, 2012, the respondent filed a petition under Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 3 FA-751-2021 Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Case No. 595A/12) before the Family Court, Gwalior, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
4. During the pendency of the said petition, on 28th January, 2013, the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC; on 27th February, 2013, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; and on 5th February, 2013, she lodged a complaint before the Women's Commission, which was dismissed on 26th July, 2013. Additionally, on 6th August, 2013, allegations were published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, alleging dowry demands and a fraudulent land transaction. Although the appellant filed applications on 12th March, 2013, and 12th September, 2013, expressing willingness to reside with the respondent, the respondent refused on 18th March, 2013, stating that multiple false complaints had been filed against him and his family. Ultimately, the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn and dismissed on 4th March, 2014.
5. During the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, on 29th April, 2015, the appellant accompanied the respondent to Gwalior, and the respondent contended that the first sexual intercourse occurred on 25th May, 2015. An ultrasound conducted on 27th July, 2015, revealed a 14-week pregnancy, and on 28th July, 2015, the appellant returned to her parental home. On 12th January, 2016, she gave birth to a male child. A DNA test was conducted pursuant to the directions of this High Court, and the report confirmed that the child born on 12th January, 2016, was the legitimate Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 4 FA-751-2021 biological child of the respondent. The respondent sought dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act primarily on the grounds of desertion from 29th April, 2012, and cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a), contending that the appellant refused to cohabit without lawful cause. The respondent further contended that the registered sale deed dated 12th April, 2012 (Ex.P-51) was validly executed and that the allegations of fraud were false and unsupported. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
6. The appellant-wife filed a written statement denying receipt of Rs. 2,15,000/- on 5th March, 2012, alleging that the entire consideration for the land was paid by her father and that the sale deed dated 12th April, 2012, was fraudulently executed. She further alleged that from 13th April, 2012 onwards, she was harassed for dowry, specifically for a Scorpio car, and asserted that on 23rd April, 2012, she was beaten and left at her parental home. The appellant further pleaded that the complaints filed were genuine and protective in nature, denied desertion, and asserted that she was always willing to cohabit. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.
7. The Family Court, after hearing the parties and framing the issues, passed a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent.
8. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the present First Appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife.
9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-wife that the Family Court committed an error in granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 5 FA-751-2021 in favour of the respondent-husband. In Paragraph 31 of its impugned judgment, the Family Court recorded a specific finding that the appellant- wife never deserted the respondent and was always willing to cohabit. Paradoxically, the Family Court also observed that the respondent and his family were "stubborn and cruel" in not bringing her back. Despite this finding, the Family Court erroneously granted a decree of divorce to the husband, failing to appreciate that the acts of cruelty were allegedly perpetrated by him, not against him.
10. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the appellant was consistently willing to reconcile. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226, it is contended that where one spouse is willing to resume cohabitation and the other refuses, such refusal may also constitute cruelty. It is further contended that false allegations of adultery constitute mental cruelty. The respondent continuously alleged that the appellant was living in adultery and questioned the legitimacy of the child born on 12.01.2016. These allegations allegedly persisted even after the DNA report established the respondent as the biological father. Further reliance is placed upon Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334, wherein it was held that false allegations of adultery or unchastity constitute the highest form of mental cruelty. Reliance is also placed upon Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, to contend that such accusations strike at the very root of the matrimonial bond, causing immense mental agony.
11. It is further contended that the appellant was subjected to physical Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 6 FA-751-2021 abuse and mental harassment regarding the demand for a Scorpio car and cash, despite her father, a poor farmer, having allegedly provided over Rs. 10 lakhs in cash, jewellery, and household items. The complaint under Section 498-A IPC, according to the appellant, establishes harassment by the respondent and his family members. It is further alleged that the respondent fraudulently transferred agricultural land into his name vide Exhibit P-51, though it was purchased using funds provided by the appellant's father. It is argued that, as per the law laid down in Samar Ghosh (supra), economic and financial exploitation also amounts to mental cruelty. The Family Court, it is contended, erred in treating the absence of specific dates as fatal, ignoring the continuous nature of harassment, as recognized in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105, where persistent dowry demands were held to constitute cruelty.
12. It is further contended that the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but withdrew the same on 04.03.2014 upon payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which, according to the appellant, demonstrates that it was the respondent who abandoned her. It is also contended that the respondent's failure to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month compelled the appellant to initiate proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act. Denial of maintenance, it is argued, also constitutes mental cruelty. It is further submitted that, as per K. Srinivas Rao (supra), the quashing of proceedings against relatives does not absolve the husband of his independent acts of cruelty. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 7 FA-751-2021 judgment and decree be set aside and the divorce petition be dismissed.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that desertion was not the ground on which the decree was granted; rather, it was granted solely on the ground of cruelty. It is contended that the multiple criminal complaints filed during the pendency of the Section 9 petition amount to mental cruelty. It is further contended that the newspaper publication dated 06.08.2013 publicly defamed the respondent and his family. The allegations of fraud in the registered sale deed dated 12.04.2012 were never substantiated by any civil challenge.
14. It is also contended that the allegations of dowry demand were afterthoughts and inconsistent. The DNA test, according to the respondent, vindicated him. It is submitted that the repeated false allegations amount to cruelty. The respondent and his family members have been acquitted of charges levelled by the appellant under Section 498-A IPC, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Supporting the impugned judgment and decree, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
16. The primary issue before this Court is whether the Family Court committed an error in granting a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent-husband.
17. Concept of ''mental cruelty'' has been elaborately discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 8 FA-751-2021 ''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."
18. 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 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.
19. 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 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 9 FA-751-2021
(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.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita (2014) 16 SCC 34, 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. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 10 FA-751-2021 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.
21. 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 and wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty. It is equally well-settled in law that lodging of false complaint amounts to cruelty {See: (2014)7 SCC Malathi Vs. B.B. Ravi, (2014) 16 SCC 34 K. Shrinivas Vs. Ku. Sunita and AIR 2003 MP 271 Johnson M. Joseph alias Shajoo Vs. Smt. Aneeta Jhonson)}
22. In the case of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja AIR 2017 SC 2138 the legal position as to when a false complaint would amount to cruelty was also examined, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 11 FA-751-2021 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".
23. It is also apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani , wherein the Court authoritatively held that when a wife lodges a complaint under Section 498- A of the IPC making serious allegations against the husband and his family members, compelling them to face criminal prosecution and trial, and such proceedings ultimately culminate in acquittal, the husband cannot be said to have suffered no cruelty. The very act of subjecting the husband and his relatives to protracted criminal litigation, if found to be unfounded, constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby entitling the husband to seek dissolution of marriage.
24. Upon a meticulous perusal of the record, it emerges that the marriage between the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife was solemnized on 17th February 2012. The appellant joined her matrimonial home on 18th February 2012 but left for her parental home on 20th February 2012. She returned on 13th April 2012 and resided there until 28th April 2012. Thereafter, on 29th April 2012, she declined to resume cohabitation. Constrained by her conduct, the respondent instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 30th August 2012. In the year 2013, the appellant initiated multiple proceedings against the respondent, including an application under Section 125 CrPC, a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and a complaint before the Women's Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 12 FA-751-2021 Commission, the latter of which was dismissed in July 2013.
25. The record further shows that in August 2013, allegations pertaining to dowry demands and purportedly fraudulent land transactions were published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, thereby bringing the matrimonial discord into the public domain. Although the appellant expressed willingness to return to the matrimonial home in March and September 2013, the respondent declined, citing the distress and humiliation caused by what he asserted to be false and defamatory complaints. The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was eventually dismissed as withdrawn on 4th March 2014. Subsequently, on 29th April 2015, the appellant accompanied the respondent to Gwalior, and the first instance of cohabitation occurred on 25th May 2015. However, she once again left for her parental home on 28th July 2015. A male child was born on 12th January 2016, and a DNA examination conclusively established the respondent as the biological father.
26. It is also borne out from the record that, by order dated 12.10.2017, a Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against the respondent's father under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, upon culmination of trial, the Court of JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind, by order dated 21.09.2024 in RCT No.530/2014, acquitted the respondent and his mother of the charges. Similarly, by order dated 13.11.2017, the proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act against the respondent's parents were quashed, and ultimately, by order dated 29.07.2024 passed in RCT No.94 of 2015, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 13 FA-751-2021 respondent was acquitted by JMFC, Lahar.
27. The cumulative effect of the appellant's conduct reveals that during the pendency of the respondent's efforts for restitution of conjugal rights, she instituted a series of criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings. The initiation of multiple litigations, including proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and Domestic Violence Act, without substantiating the allegations of harassment, caused grave mental trauma to the respondent. The publication of allegations in a widely circulated newspaper on 6th August 2013 further subjected the respondent and his family to public embarrassment and reputational harm. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat , (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that making unfounded, scandalous, and defamatory allegations against a spouse, which adversely impact their reputation and career, amounts to mental cruelty. Significantly, though the appellant alleged fraud in respect of a land sale deed, she did not initiate any civil proceedings to challenge the same, thereby rendering the allegations unsubstantiated.
28. In light of the settled legal position, the institution of false criminal complaints and the consequent acquittal of the accused spouse constitute a substantial ground for holding that mental cruelty has been established. The Family Court rightly observed that even though the respondent withdrew his petition under Section 9 of the Act, the prior conduct of the appellant had already inflicted irreparable damage upon the matrimonial relationship. Although the DNA report dispelled the respondent's allegation regarding paternity, the decree of divorce was not granted on the ground of adultery Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 19-Feb-26 05:42:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5955 14 FA-751-2021 but on the cumulative acts of cruelty perpetrated by the appellant.
29. The matrimonial bond between the parties had, by then, suffered an irreversible breakdown. The respondent was subjected to sustained mental agony by being compelled to defend multiple proceedings while simultaneously attempting reconciliation. Such persistent litigation, coupled with public defamation and unsubstantiated allegations, squarely falls within the ambit of "cruelty" as contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The findings recorded by the Family Court are grounded in proper appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference.
30. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The judgment and decree dated 28th September 2021 passed by the learned Family Court are affirmed. The First Appeal preferred by the appellant-wife stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 19-Feb-26
05:42:21 PM