Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Poonam Sisodiya vs Hemant Sisodiya on 15 January, 2026
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1954
1 FA-1590-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF JANUARY, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1590 of 2024
SMT. POONAM SISODIYA
Versus
HEMANT SISODIYA
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Sundaram, Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent though served.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anil Verma This first appeal has been filed by appellant/wife against impugned judgment and decree dated 14.03.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. RCSHM/47/2024, whereby petition under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "HMA") for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of appellant/wife was solemnized with respondent/husband on 13.04.2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Gwalior and just after the marriage, dispute arose between them and the respondent/husband has not given proper respect to the appellant/wife and used to beaten her sometimes for demand of dowry and respondent has sent her to matrimonial house due to nonfulfillment of dowry demands, thereafter, the appellant gave birth to a male child on 06.11.2018, namely, Aarush at her parental house. When she returned to her husband's house, then her husband did not take Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/16/2026 3:53:22 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1954 2 FA-1590-2024 any care and he has given threat to her and repeatedly beaten her after consuming liquor for demand of dowry. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2022, respondent left her in her parental house.
3. Appellant/wife filed a petition under Section 13(1) of HMA against respondent/husband, but despite service of notice, respondent/husband did not appear before the Trial Court and the Trial Court after recording the sole statement of the appellant/wife and appreciating the evidence available on record, dismissed her petition on the ground that petitioner has failed to prove herself for want of sufficient evidence. .
4. Learned counsel for appellant/wife contended that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary, perverse and absolutely contrary to law. Learned Trial Court has not considered that the appellant has successively proved her case with her unrebutted oral and documentary evidence. The Family Court has completely ignored the documents filed by her. The Trial Court in technical manner rejected the petition without giving any specific finding regarding cruelty and desertion. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for appellant also placed reliance upon the judgments passed in the case of Vishwanath Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [2012 (4) MPLJ 265], Smt. Ranjeet Kaur Vs. Surendra Singh Gill [2012 (2) MPLJ 59], Sheel Kumari Vs. Asharam [2016 (4) MPLJ 421], Smt. Santosh Meena Vs. Siddharth B.S. Meena [2023 (2) MPLJ 427], Smt. Ruchi Vs. Ankur Sirotiya [2020 (4) MPLJ 216] and contended that respondent has committed cruelty upon her and both the parties are living separately and litigating for the period more than five and half years and their marriage has irretrievably broken down, therefore, the appellant is entitled for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/16/2026 3:53:22 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1954 3 FA-1590-2024 committed by her husband.
6. Respondent/husband remained absent before this Appellate Court despite service of notice, therefore, this appeal is proceeded against him ex parte .
7. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and perused the entire record with due care.
8. Appellant/wife has examined herself as PW-1 before the Trial Court. Although in absence of respondent/husband, statement of appellant/wife was unrebutted. Appellant (PW-1) categorically stated in her statement that after the marriage, respondent and his family members harassed her for demand of dowry and the respondent used to commit marpeet with her after consuming the liquor and also abused her in a filthy language. She made complaint before Mahila Thana, Padav. On 30.12.2023 at about 06:30 PM, respondent/husband came at her father's home and abused and threatened her for life, then she called the police by dialing 100 number.
9. Although learned counsel for appellant in the appeal memo mentioned that the Trial Court has ignored the documentary evidence filed by appellant, but from perusal of sole statement of appellant Poonam, it is clear that appellant/wife did not prove any document in support of her ex parte evidence. Although she deposed that she made a complaint at Mahila Thana, Padav, but she did not file the copy of said complaint and did not examine any witness from Mahila Thana, Padav to prove the aforesaid complaint. She deposed that when respondent threatened and abused her, she called the police by dialing 100 number, but she did not examine any police officer to prove the aforesaid fact. Appellant contended that she is living separately since last five and half years but she did not give any notice to the appellant. She did not file any petition for grant of maintenance for her minor child against the petitioner, even she did not lodge FIR Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/16/2026 3:53:22 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1954 4 FA-1590-2024 regarding said cruelty against respondent, therefore, in absence of material documentary evidence, mere oral evidence of appellant is not sufficient to prove her allegations, even she did not examine her father or any other witness to corroborate her statement.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Family Court has rightly held that the appellant/wife has failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty by respondent/husband and deserted by respondent/husband for the period of more than three years. The findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.03.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No. RCSHM/47/2024 is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the first appeal filed by appellant/wife is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Abhi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ABHISHEK
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/16/2026
3:53:22 AM