Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Smt.Sapna on 11 February, 2026
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530
1 FA-62-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 11 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 62 of 2011
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Versus
SMT.SAPNA
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumr Pateriya with Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocates for appellant.
None for respondent No.1, though served.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anil Verma Appellant/wife has preferred this first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ' HMA) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011, whereby petition filed by appellant/petitioner under Section 13 of the HMA for seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed.
2. It is not disputed that marriage of both the parties has been solemnized on 07.05.2004 at Village Aurugh, District Mainpuri, U.P. as per Hindu rituals and rites. Due to their wedlock, respondent/wife has given birth to a child, namely, Prashant, on 16.11.2004.
3. Brief facts of the case are that after solemnizing the marriage, respondent/wife lived with appellant/husband only for nine days, but no physical relations has been established between them and thereafter appellant/husband returned to his place of service. It is also admitted that appellant/petitioner was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 2 FA-62-2011 serving in the Indian Army. In the year 2005, at the time of Diwali, when appellant went to the parental house of respondent, she was having a child and after making enquiry, parents of respondent admitted that their daughter committed mistakes and you should accept her and she will not claim about that child. Within six months of marriage, respondent gave birth of illegitimate child and she refused to live with appellant and also sent a false complaint to the commanding officer of appellant. She was living separately since a long period without any sufficient reason, therefore, appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
4. Respondent denied all these allegations in her written statement filed before trial Court by stating that although, her marriage with appellant had been solemnized on 07.05.2004, but they were in emotional relationship one year prior to their marriage and they have also established physical relations, therefore, due to cohabitation of appellant, she became pregnant and delivered a child on 16.11.2004. She never established physical relationship with any other person except the appellant. Appellant deserted her without any sufficient reason. Petition being time barred is not maintainable under Section 12, Sub Section 2(B) of HMA, which deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned trial Court after framing certain issues and recording evidence of both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, dismissed the divorce petition filed by appellant/petitioner on the ground that appellant/petitioner failed to prove that respondent was living in adultery and gave birth to any illegitimate child and petition is also time barred. Being aggrieved by aforesaid, appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for appellant contended that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 3 FA-62-2011 record and trial Court without appreciating the evidence available on record dismissed the appellant's petition on untenable and frivolous grounds. Respondent was neglecting him and she was not willing to perform her martial obligations and accordingly she has committed cruelty with him. As per provisions under Section 13 of HMA, no limitation period has been prescribed. Hence, it is prayed that impugned judgment and decree be set aside and his petition for divorce be allowed.
7. Before this Court, although respondent appeared through counsel at earlier stage, but nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent since 2022, therefore, this appeal is heard ex-parte against respondent.
8. Heard learned counsel for appellant and carefully perused the entire record with due care.
9. Appellant/husband before trial Court categorically deposed in his statement that prior to marriage, he did not establish physical relationship with respondent/wife and their marriage has been solemnized on 07.05.2004. Thereafter, on 17.05.2004, respondent/wife went to his parental house and appellant also returned to his place of service/posting. He further deposed that in the year 2005 during the Diwali vacation, when he went to village Aurugh, he found that respondent was having a child, firstly he informed that the child belongs to his neighbours, but later on, mother of respondent admits that respondent is mother of that child and she made mistake, but you should accept him. Respondent was living in adultery and she gave birth to illegitimate child within six months of marriage. She also refused to live with him and made a false complaint to appellant's commanding officer.
10. Lalji Tomar(PW-2), Manju Tomar(PW-3) and Nirmala Bhadoria(PW-4) also supported the statement of appellant Mahendra Pratap Singh.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 4 FA-62-2011
11. Respondent/wife Sapna (DW-1) categorically stated in her deposition before the trial Court that before marriage she was in an emotional relationship with appellant as their marriage has been settled and appellant came to her parental house, while she was alone and established repeatedly physical relationship with her, due to which she became pregnant and due to cohabitation of appellant, she gave birth to a child, namely, Prashant in December, 2004. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws thrown her from their house.
12. Although, appellant has filed an application I.A. No.910/2014 before appellate Court for DNA examination for determination of paternity of child, which was delivered by respondent/wife, but child was born on 16.11.2004 and now about 22 years has been passed, appellant did not file any application for such DNA examination before trial Court. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid the further complexity in the matter, now it will be not justified to issue any direction regarding DNA Examination. Therefore, I.A. No.910/2014 filed by appellant is hereby dismissed.
13. It is admitted fact that marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 07.05.2004 and respondent gave birth to a child on 16.11.2004 within six months of their date of marriage. Respondent himself admits all these facts. Although, respondent contended that child belongs to the appellant. They have established physical relationship prior to their marriage, but the same fact was never disclosed by him at the time of marriage of both the parties. Respondent did not file any birth certificate of that child. She did not file any relevant document regarding paternity of said child, therefore, on the basis of admission of respondent, it is proved that respondent has given birth to an illegitimate child within six months of her marriage with appellant. It is, therefore, proved that she was living in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 5 FA-62-2011 adultery.
14. Apart from above, respondent was living separately from appellant for the last 22 years. Even, she has lodged FIR under Section 498 A and 323/34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against appellant and her in- laws and also produced relevant documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 in her evidence, but from perusal of judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in CRA No.250/2014, it is proved that appellant and his family members were acquitted from all the charges under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, it is proved that allegation of cruelty levelled by respondent against appellant was not found proved. Appellant also made complaint(Ex.P-1) which has been made by respondent to the Commanding Officer of appellant, but no action has been taken against appellant, therefore, this complaint also appears to be false and fabricated and intention of the respondent appears to harass the appellant. On the basis of aforesaid, it appears that respondent has made false complaint against appellant. It also comes in the purview of mental cruelty.
15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, observed that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also emphasized that cruelty must be grave and substantial and not mere trivial irritations or normal wear-and-tear of married life.
16. Legal conception of cruelty and kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined by any statute of Indian Legislature relating to marriage and divorce. Cruelty may be inferred Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 6 FA-62-2011 from whole facts and matrimonial relations of the parties and interaction of daily life disclosed by the evidence. It is also settled position of law that mere altercation or conduct which is a reaction to the other spouse's provocation cannot, by itself, amount to legal cruelty unless the conduct is of such gravity that it becomes harmful or injurious for the aggrieved spouse to continue the matrimonial relationship.
17. Leaned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3786-3787/2020 decided on 26.02.2021. In that case, it has been observed herein below:-
"Where defamatory complaints had been made by wife to husband's superior officers and the complaint so made by the wife was held to have affected the career progress of the husband, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it amounted to 'mental cruelty' as the husband had suffered adverse consequences, in his life and career, on account of allegations, made by wife. The Family Court, had granted divorce to the husband, on the ground of cruelty. However, the High Court had reversed the finding of the Family Court."
18. In the case of Samar Ghosh (Supra) , wherein the Supreme Court granted divorce to the husband on the ground of mental cruelty. The Court held that the wife's conduct particularly her unilateral decision not to have a child after marriage, without informing or consulting the husband created a situation of emotional distress, frustration, and mental agony for him. The Court observed that such unilateral decisions regarding important matrimonial obligations, coupled with persistent indifference and lack of emotional companionship, amounted to mental cruelty. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage in favour Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 7 FA-62-2011 of the husband.
19. Now, examining the instant case at the attainable stamp of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited cases, suffice to say that evidence led by appellant/husband clearly demonstrates that after the marriage between both the parties in the year 2004, respondent lived with her husband/appellant for a short period and thereafter she is living at her parental house since last 22 years and within six months of their marriage, she gave birth of illegitimate child, therefore, it is proved that she is living in adultery. She made false complaint to the Commanding Officer of appellant and also lodged false and fabricated FIR for demand of dowry against her husband in which he has been acquitted by competent Court. Respondent did not file any petition under Section 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights against appellant. She did not intend to live with her husband. The mediation proceedings held between both the parties also could not bear any fruitful result. Respondent was not ready to perform her marital obligations towards her husband. Appellant made all possible efforts to bring her wife/respondent to which she was not agreed and labelled false and vague allegations to anyhow make their matrimonial fold dissolved.
20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is proved that appellant has been subjected to mental cruelty at the hands of his wife/respondent as she was living in adultery. Therefore, the findings given by trial Court does not appear to be just and proper. Appellant/petitioner has filed petition for divorce within the limitation period, therefore, findings of trial Court regarding limitation does not appear to be correct. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this first appeal filed by appellant is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 passed by trial Court deserves to be and is accordingly set aside and appellant is entitled for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA Signing time: 2/12/2026 6:31:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5530 8 FA-62-2011 dissolution of his marriage. Accordingly, marriage dated 07.05.2004 solemnized between both the parties is hereby dissolved on the ground of cruelty. Respondent is free to file an appropriate petition for grant of maintenance allowance or permanent alimony against appellant as per provisions of HMA.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
R
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:31:32 PM