Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janmajay Singh vs Smt. Neeta Singh on 6 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51195
1 FA-206-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 206 of 2015
JANMAJAY SINGH
Versus
SMT. NEETA SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Yash Soni -
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pushpanjali Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGEMENT
Per: Justice Vishal Dhagat Appellant has filed this first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna (MP) in Hindu Marriage Case No.33/2014. By said judgment and decree, petition filed by appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that marriage between appellant and respondent was solemnized on 29.01.2003 according to Hindu rites and ritual. A daughter was born from wedlock who is living with respondent. On 11.01.2005, respondent left the house of appellant to take care of her ailing mother. Appellant twice made effort for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 13-10-2025 12:58:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51195 2 FA-206-2015 resumption of marital ties. Appellant and other family members went to bring respondent to matrimonial home but respondent refused to return. Respondent told him that he is not earning satisfactory income and she will join appellant only when he will have good income. Appellant gave a notice through Advocate on 17.11.2006 but respondent did not return, therefore, he filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights on 04.12.2006. Meanwhile, respondent filed criminal cases against appellant and his family members, therefore, petition under Section 9 was withdrawn. Respondent also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C on 20.08.2007 and filed complaint case under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 20.12.2007 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna. False allegation of harassment and cruelty was levelled against appellant. Respondent had stated before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra that she did not want to live with the appellant. Police Station-Kolgawan in investigation did not find any offence of dowry demand is made out against appellant. Appellant and his family members were acquitted in complaint case vide judgment dated 24.02.2015. It is submitted that lodging of false police complaint against husband and family members amounts to cruelty. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Rani Narsimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247; K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita reported in (2014) 16 SCC 34 and K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC
226. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties. Breakdown of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 13-10-2025 12:58:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51195 3 FA-206-2015 marriage is beyond repair and there is no hope of resumption of marital ties. It is submitted that appellant is regularly paying maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to wife and Rs.5000/- to daughter. On said ground, appeal filed by appellant may be allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the prayer for grant of divorce. It is submitted by him that it was appellant who harassed respondent for demand of dowry. She was driven out of house in year 2004. Appellant made no efforts to bring respondent back to her matrimonial home. It was also denied that respondent was not satisfied with income of appellant. Appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 as a defence to claim of respondent for grant of maintenance and other proceedings which were initiated by respondent. Appellant used to beat her and also demanded dowry from her. When she was pregnant she was driven out of house. She gave birth to a daughter on 27.04.2004. Appellant and family members did not visit her to see daughter. When father and brother of respondent went to talk to appellant they were not allowed to enter the house and were assaulted. Dowry was demanded and, therefore, report at police station-Kolgawan, District-Satna (MP) was filed. Placing reliance on aforesaid facts and evidence which were adduced before the trial Court, counsel for respondent made a prayer for dismissal of first appeal for divorce.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Appellant had examined him self as (PW-1) and his relatives i.e. Rajnarayan Singh (PW-2), Arjun Singh (PW-3), Ramnaresh Tiwari (PW-4) and Ravendra Singh (PW-5). Appellant has exhibited document i.e. copy of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 13-10-2025 12:58:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51195 4 FA-206-2015 complaint case (Ex.P/1), depositions of witnesses (Ex.P/3, P/5, P/6, P/8, P/9 and P/10), document of Parivar Paramarsh Kendra (Ex.P/11). Respondent had examined herself as (DW-1) and her relatives i.e. Lalan Singh (DW-2). Trial Court disbelieved the version of appellant as respondent is said to have been harassed for demand of dowry and criminal case was pending. It was also held that respondent did not desert the appellant. She was living separately because of acts of appellant who had driven her out of house and harassed her for demand of dowry.
6. Considering the evidence available on record, it is found that appellant and his family members were acquitted from private complaint case against them. Report of dowry demand filed in police station-Kolgawan was not found to be correct and police has closed the case. Apex Court in case of Rani Narsimha Sastry (supra) in paragraph-13 had held that mere lodging of FIR is not cruelty but if husband has undergone trial and has been acquitted under Section 498-A then same amounts cruelty toward him. Further, in case of reported in Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja reported in (2017) 14 SCC 194 in paragraph-11, it has been held that wife filing false case and levelling baseless allegation against husband and family members amounts to cruelty. In this case, appellant and his family members were acquitted in complaint case by Court. Police on investigation has found allegation of dowry of demand and harassment to be false. False allegation was made by respondent against appellant and his family members which amounts to cruelty. Appellant and respondent are living separately since 2005 and now it is more than 20 years that they are living separately. There is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHABANA ANSARI Signing time: 13-10-2025 12:58:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51195 5 FA-206-2015 complete breakdown of marriage beyond repair and there cannot be resumption of marital ties between the parties.
7. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by appellant is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 passed by Family Court, Satna in Case No.33/2014 is set aside. Marriage between appellant and respondent dated 29.01.2003 is dissolved under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also on ground of complete breakdown of marriage between the parties.
8. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
$A
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 13-10-2025
12:58:42