Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramsunder vs Sushma (2026:Rj-Jd:7984-Db) on 12 February, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:7984-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3380/2024
Ramsunder S/o Shri Ramswaroop Alias Baksharam, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of Dukiyon Ki Dhani, Gotan. Tehsil- Merta,
District- Nagaur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Sushma D/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of
Dukiyon Ki Dhani, Gotan, At Present R/o. Merta City Road,
Khokharo Ki Dhani, Gotan, Tehsil- Merta, District- Nagaur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Mehriya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order (Oral) 12/02/2026 Per : Arun Monga,J
1. Appellant herein is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Merta in Civil Original Case No.11/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed and a decree of divorce has been passed against the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the respondent-wife and the appellant-husband was solemnized on 15.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs at Khokhro Ki Dhani, Gotan. As per the respondent, after the marriage no cohabitation took place and the appellant allegedly refused to (Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 02:31:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:10:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:7984-DB] (2 of 6) [CMA-3380/2024] perform the Gona. She further alleged that on 15.01.2020 and again on 21.03.2021, the appellant and his family demanded ₹5,00,000/-, a motorcycle and gold, and threatened her, leading to registration of FIR No. 90/2021 at Police Station Gotan for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, she filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2.1. The appellant filed his reply denying all allegations of cruelty, dowry demand and desertion, asserting that the marriage was not consummated and that efforts were made by him and his family to bring the respondent for Gona. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence before the learned Family Court. The appellant also produced additional documents, including CCTV footage and travel records, in support of his defence, which were taken on record.
2.2. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, Merta, vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 in Civil Original Suit No. 11/2022, allowed the divorce petition filed by the respondent- wife. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard and perused the case file.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Learned Family Court, Merta is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law. The findings recorded are unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Learned Family Court failed to consider the material electronic (Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 02:31:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:10:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:7984-DB] (3 of 6) [CMA-3380/2024] evidence produced by the appellant, including the CD containing CCTV footage and supporting documents. The said evidence was crucial to disprove the alleged incident dated 21.03.2021 and to establish that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand were fabricated. Ignoring such vital evidence reflects a mechanical approach and vitiates the impugned judgment. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Family Court acted in haste and closed the evidence of the appellant without affording adequate opportunity to produce further material witnesses and documents. Despite the presence of witnesses and an application moved in this regard, the opportunity was denied, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
4.2. He argues that the Learned Family Court below failed to appreciate material contradictions in the testimony of the respondent and her witnesses. The respondent examined herself (AW-1) and her father as an interested witness, without producing any independent witness to substantiate the allegations. The learned Court ignored this aspect while decreeing the petition. 4.3. The respondent failed to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion as required under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The findings are contrary to the evidence on record and therefore unsustainable. The trial was conducted in a hurried manner, and the appellant was not granted a fair and reasonable opportunity to effectively present his case. The impugned judgment, having been passed without full and proper consideration of the defence, is liable to be set aside.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 02:31:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:10:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:7984-DB] (4 of 6) [CMA-3380/2024]
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the rival contention of the both the learned counsels. We are of the opinion that as far as the ground for desertion taken by the respondent- wife to seek dissolution of marriage, the same stood conclusively proved on the basis of the not only admission made by the appellant-husband but also in the light of the direct evidence glaring at his face.
6. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant ever took any interest in the marriage and/or any steps were taken to resume matrimony after the parties got married to each other, except for one solitary day when they were together, which was the day of marriage itself. Immediately after marriage, the respondent is stated to have gone back to her parental house, and for as many as 12 years until the presentation of the petition, they never stayed together.
7. In this respect, reference may be had to Para No.2 and 12 of the impugned judgment. English translation of which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"2. The non-applicant submitted a written reply to the said petition and admitted the facts that both parties are Hindus; that their marriage was solemnized on 15.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs; that since they have not lived together, marital relations were not established; and that the applicant filed a complaint against him in court, upon which, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the non-applicant before the court.
The remaining allegations were denied, and it was stated that it is incorrect that the applicant's father gave so-called gold ornaments, 20 tolas of silver anklets, and ₹1,75,000 in cash. Rather, it was the non- applicant's parents who gave her approximately 14 tolas of gold ornaments and cash amounts, as well as two pairs of silver anklets weighing 20 tolas each. Additionally, during the pagphera ceremony, relatives collectively gave approximately ₹1,00,000, which is still with the applicant.
Despite repeated requests and persuasion by the non-applicant and his parents for the muklava (customary ceremony for the bride to begin residing at her matrimonial home), the applicant's father kept postponing it on the pretext of her education and job preparation. Even after information was sent regarding the deaths of the non-applicant's (Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 02:31:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:10:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:7984-DB] (5 of 6) [CMA-3380/2024] grandparents and other relatives, the applicant and her parents never came to his house and kept saying that the muklava ceremony would be conducted later.
In fact, it is alleged that the applicant's father performed only sham marriage rituals with the intention of fraudulently obtaining jewelry from the non-applicant and his parents. It is further alleged that in the marriage of the applicant's sister as well, jewelry was similarly obtained from the in-laws' side by deception, and thereafter pressure was created for divorce while retaining the goods, and the sister was remarried to a Jat man from Dangawas.
The non-applicant and his parents never demanded ₹5,00,000, 10 tolas of gold, or a motorcycle. The allegation that the non-applicant is an M.R. (Medical Representative) is also incorrect. If the non-applicant was not taking the applicant home after the muklava, she could have issued a notice for restitution of conjugal rights; instead, she lodged a false report alleging dowry demand and cruelty.
Since the applicant never resided with the non-applicant in his house, the allegation of cruelty while she was living at her parental home is inherently false. The applicant has been living separately from the non- applicant for the past 10 years without any reasonable cause and has falsely alleged threat to life, abandonment, and cruelty in order to obtain a decree of divorce and to misappropriate all the stridhan given by the non-applicant's parents, so that she may marry another person.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
12. N.A.W.1 Ramsundar stated in cross-examination that he is still ready to take Sushma with him. He also admitted that for the past 12 years they have not lived together as husband and wife under one roof. He denied the suggestion that he had abandoned the applicant for 12 years. He stated that he has not gone to his in-laws' house in the last 12 years, nor was he called there.
Sushma's sister Shobha is married to Sunil. He denied the suggestion regarding Sunil. He admitted the suggestion that after the marriage, Sushma was sent to her parental home, but thereafter, until today, they never went to bring her back. He himself stated that since the muklava ceremony never took place, how could they go to bring her? He further stated that at the instance of her father and due to family relations, they have kept Sushma separated. Sunil and his wife Shobha are divorced.
N.A.W.2 Mahipal also stated in his examination-in-chief in accordance with the reply to the petition. He also stated that his father, Baksharam, always used to tell them to send the applicant to her matrimonial home."
8. Aside above, even in the cross examination of the appellant, he conceded in no uncertain terms as below:-
"It is true that we have not lived together under the same roof as husband and wife for the last 12 years. However, it is incorrect to say that I have abandoned my wife for 12 years. I voluntarily state that I am still ready to take her back even today. I have not visited my in-laws' house for the past 12 years, nor have I been invited there."
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 02:31:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:10:10 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:7984-DB] (6 of 6) [CMA-3380/2024]
9. With regard to the challenge to the finding of cruelty, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection to the same being reversed, as the respondent does not wish to contest the said finding in the present appeal as long as decree of divorce is upheld.
10. Likewise, upon being granted an opportunity to seek instructions concerning the finding of cruelty, learned counsel telephonically consulted his client and states that even the respondent does not intend to defend the findings on cruelty rendered by the learned Family Court.
11. In view of the respondent's consent, the findings returned by the learned Family Court with respect to cruelty are accordingly set aside. Impugned judgment stands modified to the extend and decree of divorce granted by the Learned Family Court is upheld with aforesaid partial modification.
10. The instant appeal is disposed of, as above.
11. All pending application(s) including stay application stand disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
38-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 02:31:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:10:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)