Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Verma vs Smt. Preeti Khare on 2 September, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Vishal Dhagat, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215
1 FA-610-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 610 of 2016
RAVINDRA VERMA
Versus
SMT. PREETI KHARE
Appearance:
Shri Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul
Choubey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla Appellant/husband is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2016 , passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in Hindu Marriage Case No.76A/2014, whereby the divorce petition filed by the respondent/wife was allowed on the ground of desertion and the appellant/husband was directed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent - wife as a cost of streedhan within 2 months, failing which to pay additional interest @ 8% per annum.
2. Admittedly, the parties were married on 29.05.2004 and respondent/wife stayed in her matrimonial house hardly for a month; a divorce petition was earlier filed by wife registered as Case No.13A/2005 but it was dismissed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 2 FA-610-2016 the trial Court and the FA No.291/2006 preferred by wife was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court with an observation that parties may file appropriate application, if any new cause of action arises. It is also an admitted fact that issue of res-judicata was raised before the trial Court in second divorce case under issues No.1A and 1B and both of them were decided vide order dated 13.05.2015 against the respondent/wife but she did not challenge these findings under any cross appeal or cross objection. Thus, the findings given under them that the wife is not entitled to a divorce decree in her second petition on the grounds of cruelty and impotency of husband in the light of earlier decision has attained finality and is not assailable in the present appeal. The judgment passed by the Criminal Court in Criminal Case No.94/2007 by JMFC, Shahdol decision dated 7.11.2017 is also relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in which appellant/husband and his relatives were acquitted in a case of Sections 498-A IPC and 3 Dowry Prohibition Act registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the respondent-wife and this fact is not denied by the counsel for the respondent- wife.
3. After the dismissal of her first divorce petition and also the first appeal, the respondent-wife filed the second divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty regarding demand of dowry and dowry harassment. The averments regarding cruelty involved the impotency of husband, forcing the wife to enter into physical relationship with the worker of the house and an apprehension about facing some unpleasant conditions of the colour of cruelty. Besides these, the ground of desertion was also raised claiming that Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 3 FA-610-2016 she was forced out of matrimonial house for not meeting the demands of dowry. A request for divorce was accordingly made with an additional request for return of streedhan including cash amount of Rs 4 lakh.
4. The second divorce petition was opposed by the appellant-husband by claiming that all the allegations of dowry demand, dowry harassment, impotency and asking wife to have sexual relationship with some other person are entirely false and in the light of earlier decisions, she was not entitled to raise them again. It was also stated that respondent-wife had herself left the house on 17.06.2004 along with her brother and did not come back despite the effort made by the appellant-husband in September 2004 by going to the parental house of wife and requesting her to come along with him. Though the divorce petition by wife was opposed by appellant on all grounds raised, but in paragraph 18 of his reply, he has categorically pleaded that he has had enough of it and cannot bear more pain and harassment on account of these allegations; additionally, he has lost trust in this marital relationship and is therefore not willing to continue the relationship any longer. He therefore requested that if respondent - wife was willing to separation without any demand and allegations, he too was keen to give consent for it. Accordingly a request to pass a consent divorce decree, without referring to the grounds asserted in the divorce petition, has been made.
5. On the basis pleadings of both the parties, issues were settled and parties were given opportunity to examine their witnesses. Total four witnesses were examined on behalf of respondent- wife while appellant-husband examined Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 4 FA-610-2016 three. After considering and evaluating the facts and evidence of the case, the trial Court allowed the divorce petition on the ground of desertion and also directed the payment of an amount as against streedhan.
6. In this first appeal, appellant is assailing the judgment and decree on the grounds that they are contrary to facts, evidence and the law applicable; it was ignored that the earlier suit filed by the wife was dismissed and wife could have filed a fresh divorce petition only if there was any change in circumstances with the passage of time and a new cause of action to file a fresh divorce petition arose. Accordingly, it was no open for the respondent- wife to rely upon the same grounds, still the trial Court erred in law in passing the impugned decree and allowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to be paid as value of streedhan. It was ignored that the right to sue for streedhan was available even at the time of filing the earlier divorce petition registered as 13A/2005, but she failed to seek this relief and now, on account of constructive res-judicata provided in explanation (iv)(1B) of Section 11 CPC and the provision of order 2 Rule 2 CPC, any claim for such relief in a subsequent proceeding she was not entitled to any decree for payment of amount of streedhan. It was also ignored that ground of desertion was not available as respondent-wife herself had left the matrimonial house and the learned trial Court was in error in placing burden of proof on the appellant- husband to prove the efforts made for bringing her back. Only on the basis of testimony of the father of appellant-husband, who had deposed in favor of respondent-wife, the trial Court passed the impugned decree, but it was ignored that the appellant had strained relationship with him on account of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 5 FA-610-2016 his second marriage and therefore, his testimony should not have been accepted as a gospel truth. The trial Court was also in error in drawing its own presumption regarding customary practice in Hindu of giving gifts at the time of marriage and without any convincing evidence, it assumed that articles worth Rs.6,00,000/- were given in streedhan. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are challenged on the aforesaid grounds.
7. Respondent-wife has opposed this first appeal claiming that the impugned judgment and decree do not deserve any interference as they are based on reasoned and legitimate appreciation of facts and evidence and therefore, a request has been made to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record.
9. The decree of divorce is challenged in this appeal by appellant/husband on the ground of desertion and the direction to pay Rs.6,00,000/- as against the value of streedhan is also assailed by him. Although, additional grounds for divorce were raised before the trial Court and they were decided against respondent wife but as discussed earlier she has no grievance against their rejection.
10. The appellant-husband has argued this appeal against the ground of desertion by claiming that respondent-wife has manipulated the facts and she herself had left the matrimonial house on 17/06/2004 i.e. within a month from the date of marriage and despite efforts made by the appellant- husband, she refused to come back. Contrary to this submission, respondent- wife had pleaded before the trial Court that despite efforts made between year 2007-2012 by the mother and brother of respondent-wife, appellant-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 6 FA-610-2016 husband refused to resolve the differences and also refused resumption of marital life. From the pleadings, it is clear that parties are admittedly living apart since June, 2004 and are making accusations against each other for this long disruption in marital life. The trial Court under issue No. 2(A) considered the ground of desertion and held that no efforts were made by appellant-husband in last 10-12 years for bringing the respondent-wife to the marital house and therefore, a decree of divorce was passed.
11. This finding is under challenge here, claiming that the trial Court was not justified to place reverse burden of prove on appellant-husband and it was for the respondent-wife to establish that the husband had withdrawn from the conjugal relationship without any justifiable cause. During the course of arguments, a vociferous submission was made by appellant- husband that there was a categoric admission by respondent/wife made during her testimony that she was not willing to live with appellant-husband.
12. In order to settle this issue of desertion, raised before us, we have deeply frisked through the entire evidence available on record, whether it be ocular or documentary. Undisputedly, a divorce petition was filed earlier by respondent-wife on 21/03/2005 marked as Ex. D/18 and the reply given to that petition by appellant-husband on 16/08/2005 is marked as Ex. D/19. Pleadings made therein reflect that there were serious allegations and counter allegations made by the parties including those related to immoral and unchaste character. That earlier divorce petition was dismissed on 12/02/2006 vide judgment marked as Ex. D/20 on the grounds of non- maintainability and failure to prove pleadings. An appeal was preferred Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 7 FA-610-2016 before this High Court registered as F.A. No. 291/2006 but the same too came to be dismissed on 12/09/2013 vide order marked as Ex. D/24. These facts reveal that in short span of staying together for less than a month parties became so much intolerant and detested to each other that they left no stone unturned in making all sorts of allegations against each other and contested the divorce petition filed in the year 2005, and the first appeal which came to be dismissed by this Court in 2013. The matter did not settle there and a second round of litigation started in 2013 itself, when wife filed the second divorce petition, resulting into this appeal.
13. According to the pleadings made in this second divorce petition, the respondent-wife, through amendment, took the ground that between 2007- 2012 several efforts were made to settle the differences but nothing positive came out. These new pleadings were duly rebutted in the written statement by appellant/husband. From the perusal of testimony of both sides, it can be gathered that the witnesses from each side were more or less consistent on their standpoint, except for an admission that was made by respondent/wife about her non-willingness expressed before High Court during a re- conciliation proceeding held in FA no. 291/2006. For this reliance was also placed by appellant/husband on the documents marked as Ex. D/3 and Ex. D/4. They are the application and the affidavit filed by respondent/wife filed in FA no. 291/2006. Although certified copies of these documents have not have placed on record but genuineness of the photocopies was never questioned by the wife. From said admission made by the wife during her testimony in para 7 and also from documents of Ex. D/3 and D/4, it can not Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 8 FA-610-2016 be doubted that while prosecuting the earlier appeal before the co-ordinate bench of this Court, the respondent/wife expressed her non-willingness to live with husband in 2008 and again in 2012, while according to her pleadings in second divorce petition, the efforts for settlement were being made during very same period, i.e., in between 2007-2012. Had there been any sincerity in these efforts, the respondent/wife would have jumped to the opportunity of settlement through Court and would not have straightaway declined to the prospect of reconciliation.
14. The aforesaid analysis of facts brings us to the conclusion that though the ground of desertion was pleaded by respondent-wife in her second divorce petition, but she herself was not keen to resume matrimonial relationship, as she had already failed in her earlier try to secure divorce and without wasting any substantial time filed the second divorce petition. She raised this new ground of desertion through amendment in her second divorce petition, but from the admissions made by her in ocular and documentary evidence, it appears that appellant-husband should not squarely face the blame of desertion. If no efforts were made by appellant-husband since 2004 for resumption of marital ties, as observed by trial Court, respondent-wife too failed to avail the opportunities offered for settlement. It is strange that the trial Court while allowing the divorce petition on the ground of desertion completely ignored the admissions made by respondent- wife during her cross-examination and the significant documentary evidence on this point marked as Ex.D/3 and Ex.D/4. The trial court was impressed by the fact that appellant-husband could not establish through cogent evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 9 FA-610-2016 that he made any sincere efforts to bring the respondent-wife beck to matrimonial house, but it ignored the fact that there was no unilateral withdrawal on the part of appellant-husband from the society of respondent- wife and they both were not willing to resume their marital relationship. Thus, the burden of proof discussed in explanation to Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act could not have been invoked here for deciding the issue of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act. The party requesting for divorce has to establish that the other party has without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of aggrieved party has committed the act of desertion and from the conduct of both the parties in this case the only inference that can be drawn is that none of them is guilty of desertion as they both, on their own discreet choice, are living separately. Or we may say that they had several dispute while living together, but in the decision of parting they are in consonance and harmony.
15. The other aspect of this dispute was the complaint of demand of dowry and harassment lodged by respondent-wife. Admittedly, she had filed an FIR, for which appellant-husband and his relatives faced the trial. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for appellant-husband that regular criminal case No.94/2007 registered on the basis of said FIR was decided after the impugned judgment and decree were passed and in this decision dated 07.11.2017 the appellant-husband and his relatives were acquitted of the charges of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. From the arguments submitted before this Court it appears that the decision of acquittal is not challenged by respondent/wife. On the basis of this Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 10 FA-610-2016 judgment of acquittal appellant-husband has raised grievance that it was him who was at the receiving end and was subjected to false accusations and trial. We consider that misery and torment faced by appellant-husband on account of this criminal trial has hammered the final nail in the already shattered marriage of the parties.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances holistically, we came to the conclusion that marriage of the parties is only on papers and in reality it has seized to exist, as for last around 20 years they are living separately and have become accustomed to their lifestyle and social status as singletons. In this unworkable marriage it would be futile to expect them to reconcile their differences and nothing more can serve as greater misery for the them to carry depressing burden of a dead marriage.
17. We would also like to mention here that while respondent-wife had filed her second divorce petition, the appellant/husband too had made a request in his reply that he was not keen to remain in this marriage and expressed his willing to seek divorce if respondent-wife seeks dissolution of marriage without making any allegations. In terms of the request and the counter request made by the parties in their divorce petition/reply and also after appreciating the facts relating to perception of the parties towards this marriage, we come to the conclusion that searching for and assigning the blame would not be the right approach in this case. Thus, ignoring the doctrine of fault and blame and acknowledging the intent of both the parties expressed in their pleadings about seeking divorce, we, in terms of decision of Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 11 FA-610-2016 Sreenivasan reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 544, set aside the impugned decree of divorce given on the ground of desertion and hold that on the basis of consent expressed by the parties in their pleadings their marriage solemnized on 29.05.2004 shall be considered as dissolved from the dated of judgment of trial Court i.e. 05.07.2016.
18. Appellant has also assailed the money part of the impugned judgment and decree whereby he was directed to pay Rs.6 Lakhs against the value of streedhan. From the evidence available on record of trial Court it is evident that no receipts of items given in marriage as streedhan were proved in evidence on behalf of respondent/wife. Only the list of items marked as Ex.P/2 was produced in evidence, but that was not signed by appellant/husband or any of his family members acknowledging the receipt of said items. We cannot ignore here that respondent-wife did not stay even for a month in her matrimonial house and left it in June 2004 for not to return. Thus, the fate of this marriage in the light of allegations that were being made by respondent-wife was very much predictable when she left the matrimonial house, still no efforts were made to preserve the receipt of items given to the groom side in marriage or the photographs relating to the cash amount. Despite there being absence of reliable evidence trial Court allowed the request of respondent-wife and directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs.6 Lakhs. This finding of trial Court appears to be based upon unilateral appreciation of oral evidence given by respondent/wife and not considering the evidence given by appellant-husband in the rebuttal, therefore, it does not deserve to be upheld. Accordingly, we set-aside the money part of impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 15-09-2025 18:14:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44215 12 FA-610-2016 judgment and decree where under appellant/husband was directed to pay Rs.6 Lakhs to respondent-wife.
19. Consequently, present appeal is partially allowed by upholding divorce decree though not on the basis of desertion, but on the basis of consent expressed by the parties in their pleading and the direction about payment of money given under the impugned judgment and decree is hereby set-aside.
20. Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DevS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 15-09-2025
18:14:47