Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ayush Poddar S/O Girish Chandra Poddar vs Parul Patanwala D/O Shri Chandramohan ... on 10 October, 2025
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1097/2021
Ayush Poddar S/o Girish Chandra Poddar, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Flat No. 105, Sky Tower, Lotus Township, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
Parul Patanwala D/o Shri Chandramohan Patanwala, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Plot No.6, Mitra Nagar, Hawa Sadak. Jaipur
----Respondent
Connected With D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1084/2021 Ayush Poddar S/o Girish Chandra Poddar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Flat No. 105, Sky Tower Lotus Township, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Appellant Versus Parul Patanwala D/o Shri Chandramohan Patanwala, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Mitra Nagar, Hawa Sadak.
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. S. Hora, Adv. assisted by Ms. Varuni Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta, Adv. assisted by Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. and Mr. Abhay Rathore, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
Reserved on :: 23/09/2025
Date of Pronouncement :: 10/10/2025
Learned counsel for the appellant-husband (for short, 'the husband) has filed an application No. 1/2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking copy of the final report dated 09.06.2021, copy of the order dated 15.05.2023 and copy of the order dated 07.10.2023 on record, which has been replied by learned counsel for the respondent-wife (for short, 'the wife').
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (2 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the arguments have been heard today.
4. Both these appeals have been preferred by the husband against the common judgment and decree dated 1.4.2021 passed by the Judge, Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in case No. 241/2020 (526/2016) and 5/2021 (941/2017).
5. D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1097/2021 has been preferred challenging rejection of application filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, whereas D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1084/2021 has been preferred challenging rejection of application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 1955.
6. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the husband has submitted that since the grounds taken in the application under Section 12 as well as Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by the husband are almost same and he has already filed D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1097/2021 challenging the judgment of the Family Court qua rejection of application under Section 13 ibid, therefore, he did not want to press D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1084/2021 challenging rejection of application under Section 12 and wants to address the arguments qua D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1097/2021 challenging rejection of application under Section 13 only.
In view of the above statement, D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1084/2021 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (3 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
7. Now, D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1097/2021 filed in relation to Section 13 of the Act of 1955 is being is decided by this judgment.
8. Brief facts of the case are that the husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of divorce based on the ground of mischief, fraud and cruelty. It was stated in his application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2015 in Jaipur according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. On 30.11.2015 they left for Honeymoon to Maldives for which expenses were borne by his parents, where the wife insisted him to get share in his parental property and live separately, otherwise she would not allow him for sexual intercourse.
9. It was further alleged that on arrival from Maldives 07.12.2015 he received a landline call on his mobile number 9829042226 disclosing his identity as Ajay Choudhary, who stated that he was his wife's previous husband. He used obscene language and threatened to kill them. Such type of telephone calls were also said to have been received by her parents at their residence's land line number.
10. It was further alleged that on 08.12.2015, his wife went to her parents' house on the ground of birth of nephew. On the said date, his wife also received the telephone calls on her mobile and at the residence's landline number from the same person, who used abusive language and threatened to kill her. This process continued on 09.12.2015 on which date they also received threatening letters. On being asked, his wife disclosed that he might be Shantanu Singh, resident of Hawa Sadak, Jaipur. He (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (4 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] submitted a complaint at Police Station Vidhya Nagar, Jaipur about this incident. He further alleged that on 16.12.2015, he received a telephonic call from the Police Station, Vidhyadhar nagar informing that his wife and father-in-law were called for giving the statement in the aforesaid complaint, but both of them denied to give statement on the ground that they neither received any threatening call nor any one talked indecently with them.
11. He further alleged that his family members received 5 letters by post as well as through courier and they were scribbled in the same hand writing. The said letters were signed by one Ajay Choudhary stating him as NSUI leader. He wrote therein that his wife was having illicit relations with him for the past 13 years and she eloped to marry him. Later on, she was recovered on 11.01.2011 from Ahemdabad by Sodala Police.
12. He further alleged that when he telephoned the parents of the wife and also met them on 05.01.2016 & inquired about that, they stated that Shantanu Singh was her classmate in the school and the aforesaid letters might have been written either by him or his colleague. They admitted that in order to save themselves from defamation, they did not disclose anyone about her past relations with Shantanu Singh, which shows that his wife had illicit relations with numerous persons, but she and her parents fraudulently concealed her past history. This act of his wife gave him grave mental agony.
13. He also alleged that to deceive him, his wife mentioned her incorrect date of birth as 24.4.1983 in the bio-data. When he met with the Astrologer who matched their Horoscope, he stated that her wife might not have disclosed her correct date of birth, (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (5 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] upon which he went to the travel agent and obtained the photostat copy of the wife's passport, wherein her date of birth was found as 24.04.1981.
14. He further alleged that the wife is of quarrelsome behaviour. She used to threaten him and his family members to entangle them in false cases, due to which it was highly impossible for them to reside happily and for this reason, he had to leave the house and reside far away from the family members. On 8.12.2015, she went to her parents' house and did not return back. Since then they are residing separately.
15. He further alleged that in order to harass and humiliate him and his family members, the wife filed a false complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
16. The divorce petition was contested by the wife by way of filing reply to the application stating therein that her bio data was sent to the husband through E-mail by her parents. The story cooked up by the husband with regard to mismatch of Horoscope is highly improbable and imaginary. She further stated that after marriage and during honeymoon, the couple entered into physical relationship. The alleged calls on mobile phone were fake and it was an after thought of her husband and his mother, with which she had no concerned. The purported letters were forged and bore fraudulent signatures. They committed cheating with her and ruined her future. Her husband, his mother and elder brother quarreled and misbehaved her and dropped her on 08.12.2015 at her parents' house.
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (6 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
17. She further submitted that nothing was concealed by her or her parents nor any cheating nor fraud was committed by them. In order to save her married life, she did not take any step in relation to the prank calls, for which FIR was lodged by her husband on 11.12.2015.
18. She also submitted that the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2021 has been passed by the Family Court after due appreciation of evidence available on record and there being no illegality or infirmity in the same, no interference therewith is required by this Court. In the last, she prayed that the application filed by the husband be dismissed.
19. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the family Court framed the following issues :-
1- vk;k vizkfFkZ;k ds fookg ls iwoZ fdlh vU; O;fDr ls laca/k Fks\ ,oa bl rF; dks izkFkhZ ls fNikdj mls /kks[ks esa j[kdj fookg gsrq lgefr yh] fygktk fookg 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 2- vk;k vizkfFkZ;k }kjk mldh okLrfod tUefrfFk 24-04-1981 dks fNikdj 24-04-1983 dks ck;ksMsVk esa fy[kdj o tUe dq.Myh 24-04-1983 ls feykdj /kks[kk fd;k] tks bl vk/kkj ij lEiUu fookg 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 2, vk;k vizkfFkZ;k dk O;ogkj izkFkZuki= varxZr /kkjk 13 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e esa of.kZrkuqlkj izkFkhZ ds izfr ekufld dzwjrk dkfjr djus dk jgk\ 2ch vk;k izkFkhZ fodYi esa vizkFkhZ ds fo#) dzwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg foPNsn dh fMØh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3 vuqrks"kA (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (7 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
20. Since the application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 has been withdrawn, therefore, the issues no 1 and 2 relating to Section 12 of the Act of 1955 are not being dealt with and the issues no. 2A and 2B relating to Section 13 of the Act of 1955 are being discussed here-in-below.
21. In order to prove his case, the husband got himself examined as AW-1, Ila Solanki as AW-2 and got exhibited the documents from A-1 to A-25. In order to prove her case, the wife got herself examined as NAW-1, Chandra Mohan Patanwala as NAW-2 and Dinesh Mishra as NAW-3 and got exhibited the documents from A-1 to A-29.
22. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the wife lodged false FIR for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, in which police after completing the investigation, submitted the negative final report against which the wife submitted the protest petition, on which the learned trial court took cognizance against husband and his mother for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and against brother in law for the offence under Section 354 IPC. He further submits that in Cr. Revision Petitions filed by him, the Revisional Court vide its order dated 07.10.2023 set-aside the order dated 15.05.2023 and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order in the light of the points as mentioned in the court's order and in the light of the reasons given in the FR submitted by the Police. Further, the revision No.42/2023(453/2023) filed by the wife for taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 383, 500 and 120-B IPC was dismissed, which has not been challenged by the wife.
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (8 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
23. Learned counsel for the husband further submits that after marriage, he and his wife received calls on their mobile from landline number. The caller not only abused them but also threatened to kill them and used obscene language. The calls continued till 9.12.2025 both on the wife's mobile phone and residence's landline number as well as his mobile phone. They also received letters (Ex.A/14 to Ex.A/19), after which he submitted a report to the Police (Ex.-10) and on the basis of which the FIR No. 483/2015 (Ex.A/17) was lodged at Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur (North) for the offence under Sections 504, 506 and 509 IPC, in which his wife submitted an application (Ex.-A/21) stating therein that neither anyone threatened her nor anyone talked indecently and when nothing happened with her, she did not want to give statement, which shows her behaviour and conduct. She also gave contradictory statement to the police to suppress material fact, which amounts to mental cruelty.
24. Learned counsel for the husband further submits that on 5.1.2016, a meeting took place at Hilton Hotel, where also the false statements given by the wife and her father to the police were brought up and again no clarification or explanation was given as to why before the police authorities and investigating officer, she and her father took a "U turn" by giving contradictory statement to the police, which tantamounts to deceiving & committing cruelty with him.
25. Learned counsel for the husband further submits that Ila Solanki (AW-2), who by chance met to the husband during family court proceedings, admitted in her cross-examination that on account of illicit relations, a matrimonial dispute arose between (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (9 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] her and her husband and he filed a divorce petition against her in the year 2008. In her statement, she mentioned the names of the females including respondent, with whom her husband had illicit relations. The respondent was sending messages to her husband from the year 2004. On 3rd March, 2004, her husband was caught red handed in compromising position with respondent in the parking of Hotel Rambagh Palace by her brother in law and his friends, as a result of which she quarreled with her husband, but she had not taken further step in the matter for the reason that she had left for Noida. Later-on her husband also came to Noida and apologized in that regard and thereupon she returned to her husband's house. She further stated in her evidence that in her absence, her husband, who was driving the Car, met with an accident in June, 2004 and at that time, respondent was accompanying him. In the said accident, respondent sustained a big scar on her forehead and in order to hide that Scar, her husband got her micro-stitching done through plastic surgeon. She further stated that in the year 2007 when continuous messages were coming on the mobile phone of her husband, she requested and called respondent for a meeting in the parking of Hotel Country Inn Sweets, where also hot talks took place and respondent asked her to stop her husband, if she could do so, which clearly shows that the wife was living in adultery.
26. He further submits that bio data was sent for marriage by the wife, in which her incorrect date of birth (24.4.1983) was recorded and it was on the basis of the said date of birth that Horoscopes were matched, but the actual date of birth, as recorded in the Passport was 24.4.1981. The fact that incorrect (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (10 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] date of birth was given in the Bio-data was not disputed by her in the reply to the application. She and her family members played fraud by decreasing the age by 2 years. He further submits that when their horoscope with wife's actual date of birth (24.4.1981) was again examined by the Astrologer, there was a complete mismatch. Thus, by concealing above material fact, the wife committed cruelty with him.
27. He further submits that the wife filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005') levelling false allegations against him, his brother and mother, which have no relevance to the facts of the instant case. Approximately 3 years of filing the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and to add insult to the injury, the wife lodged an FIR No 53/2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) for the offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC. In the said FIR, he was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2019 in S.B. Cr. Writ Petition No. 449/2019. Further in order to falsely implicate his brother, she gave misleading statement to the police that his brother molested her and outraged her modesty. She filed an application for vacating the interim order which was granted to the husband in respect of FIR No.53/2019, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.1.2020 and the interim order was confirmed till disposal of the petition.
28. He further submits that the marriage has irrevocably been broken down as the parties lived as husband and wife only for two weeks and have been living separately since 8.12.2015 and there is no chance of re-union.
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (11 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
29. He further submits that the findings arrived at by the Family Court on the aforesaid issues is contrary to the aforesaid facts and thus, the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.4.2021 passed by the Family Court is not legally sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
30. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that from the year 2001 to 2003, she took admission in INFID, Jaipur Academy of Interiors for interior designing course. Since the Directors of INFID, Jaipur Academy of Interiors are the husband and his family members, they were having her educational qualification documents with them and were knowing well about her actual date of birth. He further submits that mere letters or the prank calls are not the conclusive proof about the conduct of the wife. He further submits that in relation to the letters received by Smt. Kamla Poddar (husband's mother), she submitted a report to Police Commissioner (Ex.-12), whereupon the matter was thoroughly investigated and after investigation, the DCP concerned vide his report (Ex.A/16) came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the letters received at the residence of Smt. Kamla Poddar and they were written intentionally by someone else in order to tarnish the image of wife.
31. He further submits that so far as Astrologer is concerned, the wife or her family members never visited him and not disclosed about the date of birth. He further submits that neither obscene calls were made on the wife's mobile phone nor any threatening was given to her. He further submits that the (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (12 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] case filed for the offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC has not been decided finally and the matter is still pending consideration.
32. So far as Ila Solanki is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that Ila Solanki was not a witness of alleged compromising state of her husband with respondent and she gave statement on the basis of hearsay evidence of her brother in law and his friends. Therefore the statement of Ila Solanki was untrustworthy and does not inspire any confidence.
33. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and gone through the record as well as the evidence recorded by the learned Family Court.
34. In the case in hand, the husband has filed divorce petition against wife on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, deceiving and cruelty. The burden to prove issues pertaining to these grounds was upon husband.
35. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments. In a recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita (Civil Appeal No.2012/2013; decided on 26.01.2023), in Paras No.17 and 18, it has been held that:-
"17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a 'human conduct' and 'behavior" in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:-
" 46...If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (13 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.
Cruelty can be even unintentional:-
...The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill- treatment."
18. This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows:
(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.
(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) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (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. (emphasis supplied) (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (14 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
36. In the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in 2020 (18) SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"13. In the present case the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to proceeding initiated by respondent under Section 498-A of IPC, the High Court made following observation in paragraph 15:
15. ....Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty."
The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband. As per pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only 18 months and thereafter they are separately living for more than a decade now."
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja reported in 2017 (14) SCC 194, has held as under :-
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (15 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] "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 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 of IPC."
38. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa reported in 2013 (5) SCC 226, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"22. According to the respondent-wife, on 17.9.2007 when she, alongwith her mother, came out of the court after a case filed by her against the appellant-husband was adjourned, the appellant-husband beat her mother and kicked her on her stomach. Both of them received injuries. She, therefore, filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC against the appellant- husband (C.C. No. 79/2009). It may be stated here that on 19.10.2009 the appellant- husband was acquitted in this case.
xx...xxx....xx (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (16 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable brokendown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable broken down of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are tried up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree."
39. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Jaya Chandra Vs. Aneel Kaur reported in 2005 (2) SCC 22, has held as under:
"12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be 'grave and weighty"
so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions."
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat reported in [(1994) 1 SCC 337] clarified that mental cruelty must be assessed from the impact of the conduct on the aggrieved spouse and where it has caused a reasonable apprehension that it would be injurious to cohabit further.
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (17 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
41. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nathulal Versus Nathi Bai (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No 244/1993) decided on 31.5.2016, has held as under:
"Taking into consideration that the respondent has been threatening that she will either put an end to her life and kill the appellant, abusing the husband time and again and threatening that she will make him loose his job, insulting the husband in front of others and his parents also, complaints of independent persons regarding her quarrelsome and uncalled for behaviour, tarnishing not only the image of her husband but also his parents, are almost so grave an order as to imperil the appellant's sense of personal safety, mental happiness, job satisfaction and reputation, in our humble view a case of cruelty is clearly made out.
Taking into consideration that as admittedly both have lived separately since 1989 i.e. almost 27 years now and have been fighting tooth and nail against each other in our view, it also can be said to be irretrievable breakdown of marriage or rather it is a failed marriage and the delicate bond of marriage of sacrifice no more is apparent in addition to cruelty and we feel appropriate to let both husband and wife now be made free from the marriage bonding which was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs in April, 1979 i.e. 37 years ago by now, may be dissolved."
42. Thus, it is amply clear that the term 'mental cruelty' has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It varies form fact to fact and depends upon nature of allegations, background of respective families of husband and wife, their education, their place of residence, regional and cultural background, number and nature of litigation took place and other relevant factors which are necessary to infer that such act and conduct in manifest and apparent manner could lead to a situation, where it is not possible for either of the spouse to lead (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (18 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] peaceful and meaningful marital life with the other spouse and it has turned into an irretrievable broken down of marriage.
43. In the instant case, it is the contention of the counsel for the husband that his wife knew that she was 2 years older than him, but to deceive him, she suppressed this fact and knowingly & intentionally recorded her incorrect date of birth in the bio data so that their horoscope will be matched.
44. In this regard, from perusal of record, it reveals that in the passport, her date of birth was recorded as 24.4.1981 and in the Bio-Data, her date of birth was recorded as 24.4.1983. NAW-2 Chandramohan (father of the wife) admitted in his cross- examination that bio-data was prepared by his daughter. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the wife has not given any plausible reason for recording two different date of birth, as a result of which an adverse inference is drawn against her.
45. From perusal of record, it is further revealed that after return from honeymoon, they received threatful and abusive calls from landline numbers on their mobile phone. For the above incident, the husband lodged an FIR No. 483/2015 (Ex.A/17) at Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, in which his wife submitted an application (Ex.P/21) to the SHO, stating therein that she neither received any threatening call nor anything happened with her, whereas in her reply, she did not specifically deny the contents of the FIR.
46. It is also relevant to mention herein that the wife lodged an FIR No 53/2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) against the husband and his mother for the offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC. In the said FIR, she had not levelled (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (19 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021] allegation against her brother-in-law for the offence under Section 354 IPC, which is duly established from her cross-examination, but subsequently, with a view to implicate him, she improved her version and levelled allegation against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
47. From the record, it further reveals that in the said FIR, the police submitted the Negative Report, in which on filing of protest petition by the wife, though the trial court took cognizance against husband, but on filing of revision petition by the husband, the revisional court set-aside the said cognizance order and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and by the same order, the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the wife for taking cognizance against the husband and others for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 383, 500 and 120B IPC, which having not been challenged by her, attained finality.
48. It is also pertinent to mention here that testimony of AW-2 alleging that respondent was having illicit relations with her husband, remained unshaken during her cross-examination.
49. Apart-from above, from the evidence on record, it is an admitted position that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2015 and both the parties lived together for two weeks only and are living separately since 2015. At this stage, there is no chance of reunion of the parties as the marriage has irretrievably broken down and as of now asking both of them to live together at this point of time would amount to cruelty with both of them.
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (20 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh" reported in 2007 (4) SCC 511 has held as under :-
"(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."
51. In the case of "Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli"
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"....(32) Both the parties have levelled allegations against each other for not maintaining the sanctity of marriage and involvement with another person. According to the respondent, the appellant is separately living with another woman, 'Shivanagi'. According to the appellant, the respondent was seen indulging in an indecent manner and was found in compromising position with one Biswas Rout. According to the findings of the Trial Court both the parties failed to prove the allegations against each other. The High Court has of course reached the conclusion that the appellant was living with one 'Shivanagi' for a considerable number of years. The fact of the matter is that both the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years. Number of cases including criminal complaints have been filed by the respondent against the appellant and every effort has been made to harass and torture him and even to put the appellant behind the bars by the respondent. The appellant has also filed cases against the respondent.
(33) We would like to examine the facts of the case in the light of the settled position of law which has been crystallized by a series of judgments."
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM) (Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:39259-DB] (21 of 21) [CMA-1097/2021]
52. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court in respect of issues is not according to law and thus, Family Court has committed material illegality while dismissing the application filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act of 1955.
53. Accordingly, the D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal 1084/2021 challenging the order passed on the application under Section 12 of the HMA is dismissed as withdrawn, whereas D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1097/2021 challenging the order passed on the application filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 is allowed; the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2021 passed by the Family Court to the aforesaid extent is set-aside; and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 22.11.2015 stands dissolved. Decree of divorce be drawn accordingly.
54. A copy of this order along with original record be sent to the Family Court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
D.K./15-16
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 02:29:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:15:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)