Madhya Pradesh High Court
Apurva Garg vs Arun Garg on 14 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554
1 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
FIRST APPEAL No. 590 of 2020
APURVA GARG S/O ARUN GARG
(D/O SHRI PARMANAND JI AGRAWAL)
Versus
ARUN GARG S/O SHRI VINOD GARG
Appearance:
Appellant - wife by Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta - Advocate appearing
along with Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate.
Respondent - husband by Shri Sanjay P. Joshi - Advocate.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 591 of 2020
APURVA GARG W/O ARUN GARG
(D/O SHRI PARMANAND JI AGRAWAL)
Versus
ARUN GARG S/O SHRI VINOD GARG
Appellant - wife by Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta - Advocate appearing along
with Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate.
Respondent - husband by Shri Sanjay P. Joshi - Advocate.
Reserved on : 06/11/2025
Pronounced on : 14/11/2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 14-11-2025
17:17:06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554
2 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi These appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as ‗the Act of 1984') have been preferred by the appellant - wife against impugned common judgment and decree dated 30.07.2020 passed in HMA Case No.104 of 2015 and HMA Case No.153 of 2018 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (MP), whereby a petition filed by the appellant - wife for a decree of divorce under Sections 13 (1) (1-a) and 13 (1) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the HMA) has been dismissed; and a petition filed by the respondent - husband for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA has been allowed.
Since both these appeals have arisen from the common order / judgment and decree passed between the common parties, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. It is admitted that the marriage between the appellant - wife and respondent - husband was solemnized on 30.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs at Mandsaur. They have no issue.
2.1 The case of the appellant - wife in a petition for relief of divorce is that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 3 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 she has been 'deserted' by the respondent - husband since 21.01.2013; and since then they have not lived as husband and wife. She is residing with her parents and is in a private service at Indore. The respondent - husband has not fulfilled his marital obligations . The appellant and members of her family made several attempts for resuming family life between the appellant - wife and respondent - husband, but no solution could be found. After marriage, she was residing in a joint family of the respondent - husband with her mother-in- law, father-in-law, Jeth, Jethani and Devar, but their behaviour towards her was not proper. When on 03.12.2010, she was allowed to go with her father, the respondent meted out very cruel, inhumane and inappropriate behaviour. Despite being of sound economic condition, she was sent with her father by train.
2.2 After marriage, she went on honeymoon with respondent to Shimla, where also behaviour of the respondent was inappropriate. Under threat, he demanded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakhs only) to be handed over to his father to meet out expenses incurred in marriage. On 22.12.2010, birthday of appellant, both of them were returning to Ratlam. Her father was in service at Ratlam at that time, but the respondent did not allow her to meet her parents. She never complained to her parents about cruel behaviour of the respondent. Ultimately, when she did not found Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 4 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 any change in inhuman and cruel behaviour of the respondent, then she informed about it to her father (Paramanand Agrawal), Tauji - elder brother of father (Ashok Agrawal) and Phupha (Banwarilal) who sitting with relatives of matrimonial family Vinod Ji Garg, Asha Ji Garg, Navneet Ji Garg and Shikha Ji Garg and other reputed members discussed the matter to find out a solution wherein the respondent - husband accepted his fault and assured not to repeat it in future and on assurances from the elders and reputed members, she came to live with the respondent. On 21.01.2013, there was inauguration ceremony of paper factory of her Devar. On that day also, the respondent assaulted her where her father-in-law Vinod Garg intervened stating that he cannot allow her to live with bad mannered (Nalayak) undignified son. He called her father to take her back. She was sent with her father and since then she is residing with him. Thereafter respondent completely neglected to make any inquiry or contact with her. Despite repeated efforts by her relatives when solution could be found, she herself met her in -laws who refused to take any responsibility. She is dependent upon her father for basic requirements. The respondent, who is B.A., LL.B., can earn by taking some service, but he is not doing that on the ground that he will lose his share in the ancestral property. He habitually treats her with distrust. He neither allows her to have conversation with her elder sister nor allows her to go for shopping. He insists for cooking in the night at Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 5 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 02:00 A.M., but did not take food thereafter and treats her like maid; and if any one behaves with her politely, he picks up quarrel with him. He has been all irascible and quarrelsome disposition. He habitually engaging himself in picking up disputes and exhibiting a short tempered nature, thereby disturbing the peace and harmony of the household. He has been in persistent habit of deferring and neglecting his marital obligations. He himself sleeps in day time and harasses her during sleeping ours in night. He used to humiliate and taunt her on one pretext or the other and persistently making unlawful demand for dowry. He also repeatedly utters that if girl is born out of the wedlock, he will divorce her. On the date of marriage 01.12.2010 when she won game of searching out ring, he twisted her arm in frustration and broke her bangles and left his dinner half way. On a holiday when she was playing carrom with him and when she was winning, he thrown away carrom board and in enraged state broke T.V. He pulls her hairs over trivial matters. He hours together remains on mobile phone. In the morning at 07:00 AM he leaves for factory and returns in night at 10:00 PM. He did not take care of her. Thus he used to harass her. 2.3 He is having intimate relationship with official Nupur Verma in his Office. When she objected on this, she was abused and slapped. After sometime of marriage Nupur Verma called her along with respondent for having meals with her. She was made to sit there and respondent along with Nupur Verma Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 6 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 went into other room. When they did not return for about 30 minutes she went to room and witnessed respondent and Nupur Verma in a compromising position. She objected on it and told about this to mother of Nupur Verma, who told her that respondent after divorcing her will marry with Nupur. She was abused and slapped and threatened to disclose about this to anyone. Respondent remains connected with Nupur Verma on phone during night which has been heard and witnessed by her. Before filing of the petition for divorce, she and members of her family had made strenuous efforts to reconcile for restitution of conjugal rights, but when they reached to a conclusion that there is no possibility of settlement, she had filed a petition for annulling her marriage with the respondent. Appellant - wife has opposed petition filed for restitution conjugal rights by respondent - husband stating that by his bad behaviour, he has made it impossible to live with him and, therefore, is not entitled for any relief in the petition and prayed for dismissing it.
3. In response to the petition filed under Section 9 of the HMA on behalf of the respondent - husband, the appellant - wife opposed the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that his bad behaviour has made it impossible for her to lead a happy married life with the respondent, therefore, urged the Court to dismiss the petition filed on behalf of the respondent - husband with a further prayer to allow her petition for grant of a decree of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 7 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 divorce. In reply to the petition, the respondent - husband refuted all the allegations raised in the petition filed by the appellant - wife. He levelled counter allegations against the appellant that she herself has harassed him since she did not want to live with him and, therefore, she has levelled all baseless allegations against him. After near about two years of filing of divorce petition, she had levelled allegation of adultery against him. He has further refuted allegations with regard to his bad behaviour and maltreatment with the appellant and not fulfilling marital obligations. He had always taken care of her. She herself did not want to live with him. To resume marital life, he filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA, which has been opposed by the appellant, which in itself reveals that she is not interested living with the respondent and that too without any reason. He has further submitted in response to petition filed on behalf of the appellant - wife and in support of his petition filed under Section 9 of the HMA that the appellant - wife has no ground for obtaining a decree of divorce. Her petition is devoid of any substance, therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the appellant - wife; and allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. Learned Family Court, after going through the pleadings, to resolve the controversy involved in the case, framed relevant issues in both the cases and allowed both the parties to adduce the evidence to substantiate their pleadings Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 8 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 and after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, vide the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the petition for decree of divorce filed on behalf of the appellant and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed on behalf of the respondent, which gave rise to these first appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - wife submits that petition for a decree of divorce was filed on the ground of cruelty / misbehavior, extra marital affair of the respondent and also on the ground of 'desertion'. Ample evidence was made available during trial which is on record. Despite the evidence, learned Family Court discarding the same, has dismissed her petition and thereby committed a grave error of fact and law. Since the respondent - husband had consistently harassed the appellant - wife, therefore, it cannot be said that she is living away from his company, without sufficient reasons. Various instances of 'cruelty' and misbehavior were proved by evidence, but the same have not been taken into account by the learned Family Court and further committed error in granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent - husband. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has emphasized that the appellant has examined herself only while the respondent has examined himself as DW-1, Vinod Garg as DW-2, Ashadevi as DW-3, Ajay Garg as DW-4 and Shalabh Jain as DW- Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 9 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
5. To buttress his points, learned counsel submits that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require of any party to examine multiple witnesses to prove his/her case. A party can prove his / her case by his own evidence if it is found reliable and trustworthy. Mere examining multiple witnesses could not have been given weight-age in favour of the respondent. By doing so, the learned Family Court has committed legal error. It has also been lost sight of that the appellant and respondent were living separately since last thirteen years and three months. There is no possibility of reconciliation of their marriage; and now, the marriage is irretrievably broken down, which cannot be revived. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohil v. Neelu Kohil reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558, paragraphs No.32 to 34 and 45 of the judgment in case of Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam report in 2024 SCC On-Line SC 3822. Reliance has further been placed on paragraph No.23 of a decision dated 06.03.2025 passed in First Appeal No.377 of 2020 (Bhuribai v. Bheem Singh) and First Appeal No.388 of 2020 (Bhuribai v. Bheem Singh). On these miscellaneous submissions, learned counsel for the appellant - wife urges the Court for allowing the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant - wife and setting aside the impugned judgment and decree by further granting a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant - wife and dismissing the petition filed for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 10 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 restitution of conjugal rights on behalf of the respondent - husband under Section 9 of the HMA.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - husband vehemently opposed the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant - wife on the ground that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed on due appreciation of the evidence. On various occasions, the respondent - husband has expressed his willingness to resume the marital life with the appellant - wife, but she is adamant not to live with him and even after passing of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, she is not complying with the decree. The appellant - wife could not establish any of the grounds for grant of decree of divorce as provided under Section 13 of the HMA. She has levelled baseless allegations against the respondent - husband, which she could not prove, therefore, on due appreciation of the evidence, learned Court below dismissed the petition for decree of divorce filed on behalf of the appellant - wife and allowed the petition filed on his behalf under Section 9 of the HMA for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned trial Court has not committed any factual or legal error in passing the impugned judgment and decree, and therefore, it required no interference by way of these appeals. Any party cannot derive benefit of his own faults. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent - husband has invited attention of this Court towards paragraphs No.21, 22, 23, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 11 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 52, 55, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67, 68 and 70 to 73 of the impugned judgment and paragraph No.9 of examination-in-chief of statement of the appellant - wife and various paragraphs of cross-examination of the respondent - husband. He has also invited attention of this Court towards photographs Ex.D-26, which relate to the honeymoon period. He further submits that the respondent - husband through his own evidence as DW-1, evidence of Vinod Garg (W-2), Smt. Ashadevi Garg (DW-3), Ajay Garg (DW-4) and Shalabh Jain (DW-5) and other documentary evidence has proved that the appellant - wife has no ground to get the decree of divorce.
7. Learned counsel to buttress his submissions has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh reported in (2017) 4 SCC 85, Arun Kshatri v. Smt. Mathu Kshatri reported in 2007 (1) MPLJ 585, Sanjeev v. Smt. Mithilesh Kumari reported in 2003 (2) MPLJ 385, Seema v. Nilesh reported in AIR 2006 MP 46 and Rajendra v. Meena reported in AIR 2005 MP 166 and Sukhram v. Nirupama Yadav reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 396. On these miscellaneous submissions, learned counsel for the respondent - husband urges the Court to dismiss the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant - wife, as having no force.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 12 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
9. Word ―cruelty‖ has not been defined in the H.M.A. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.
10. The appellant had filed petition for decree of divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' and 'desertion' under Section 13 (1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of HMA and also opposed the petition filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 9 of HMA for restitution of Conjugal Rights. To appreciate the controversy involved in the instant case provisions of Section 13 (1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of HMA and Section 9 of HMA are reproduced as under:-
―13. Divorce.- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(i) .....
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or] ..........Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 13 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground-
(i) ....
(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.
9. Restitution of conjugal right.-- When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. [Explanation.--Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.]‖
11. In case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60 at page 108 the Apex court has made some observations with regard to the term cruelty which may profitably be reproduced here as they are still relevant:-
―4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words ―treated the petitioner with cruelty‖. The word ―cruelty‖ has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 14 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the 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, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. 5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been a marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners.
It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon [(1966) 2 All ER 257, 259] ―the categories of cruelty are not closed‖. Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 15 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty.‖
12. In case of V. Bhagat Mrs. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337: AIR 1994 SC 710, Supreme Court in para 16 has held as under:-
―16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."
13. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326, 338 : AIR 1975 SC 1534 : (1975) 3 SCR 967, 978] in para 32 observed as:
―The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 16 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures.‖
14. In case of Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court in para 98 to 101 has held as under:-
―98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of ―mental cruelty‖ within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.
99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible.
What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system
100.Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 17 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty‖. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(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.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 18 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 19 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
(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.‖
15. Relying upon judgment in Shobha Rani (supra) in A. Jaychandra vs. Aneel Kaur [ (2005) 2 SCC 22] allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court in para 10 to 14 held as under:
―10.The expression ―cruelty‖ has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 20 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.
11. The expression ―cruelty‖ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v.
Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60 :
AIR 1988 SC 121] .)
12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be ―grave and weighty‖ so as to come to the conclusion that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 21 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 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. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
13. The court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 22 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.
14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. [See N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326 : AIR 1975 SC 1534] .]‖
16. In case of Ramchander v. Ananta,[(2015) 11 SCC 539] Supreme court in para 10 has held that cruelty can be inferred from the fact and circumstances:-
―10. The expression ―cruelty‖ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 23 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff.
What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case [Samar Ghosh v.Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511] this Court set out illustrative cases where inference of ―mental cruelty‖ can be drawn and they are only illustrative and not exhaustive.‖
17. In case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with point of cruelty and its ramification in Family cases as held that when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. Relevant paragraph 49 reads as under:-
"49. The Court went on to observe as under: (SCC pp. 108- 09, para 5) ―5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 24 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon [(1966) 2 All ER 257 : (1966) 2 WLR 993 (CA)] ‗the categories of cruelty are not closed'. Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty.‖ 17.1 In the aforesaid case, it has further been held that word ―cruelty‖ has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily inferred. Relevant paragraph - 51 runs as under:-
"51. The word ―cruelty‖ has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case. There may be instances of cruelty by unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result from the cultural conflict between the parties. Mental cruelty can be caused by a party when the other spouse Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 25 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 levels an allegation that the petitioner is a mental patient, or that he requires expert psychological treatment to restore his mental health, that he is suffering from paranoid disorder and mental hallucinations, and to crown it all, to allege that he and all the members of his family are a bunch of lunatics. The allegation that members of the petitioner's family are lunatics and that a streak of insanity runs through his entire family is also an act of mental cruelty.
17.2 Relying upon the judgment by the Apex Court in case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73], it has been further held in Naveen Kohli (supra) that mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other.
Relevant paragraph of Naveen Kohli (supra) which has taken care of Savitri Pandey (supra) runs as under:-
"52. This Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73] stated that mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. ―Cruelty‖, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.‖ 17.3 In the aforesaid case paragraph - 54 which runs as under taking note of judgment in paragraph - 7 of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa [(2002) 2 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 26 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 SCC 619], it has been held that the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. Relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-
―7. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. ‗Cruelty' for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case.‖ 17.4 In the aforesaid judgment of Naveen Kohli (supra),the Hon'ble Apex Court has also kept in view the judgment passed by the Apex Court in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22] a three-Judge Bench of this Court has also further dilated on various aspects of cruelty mental or physical which may be a ground of dissolution of marriage. Relevant paragraph 10 to 14 are reproduced as under:-
―10. the expression ‗cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 27 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, the courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.
11. The expression ‗cruelty' has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 28 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] .)
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. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
13. The court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 29 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.
14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to the matrimonial court.‖ 17.5 In the aforesaid case of Naveen Kohli (supra), it has further been held that once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. Relevant paragraph Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 30 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 72 runs as under:-
"72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.‖ 17.6 In the aforesaid case of Naveen Kohli (supra), in paragraph 88, the Hon'ble Apex Court has required of High Courts to consider that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach and in the factual matrix of that case has held that not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Relevant paragraph 88 runs as under:-
"88. The High Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.‖ 17.7 In the aforesaid case of Naveen Kohli (supra), in paragraph 89, it has further been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 31 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 conducive in the interest of both the parties. Relevant paragraph - 89 runs as under:-
"89. In our considered view, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the trial court. In our opinion, wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties.‖
18. Looking to the factual matrix of the aforesaid case where parties were living separately for more than 10 years and were found involved in large number of criminal and civil cases have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant, it was held that the marriage bond was irretrievably broken down and keeping the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond.
19. In the light of exposition of law as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, we will scrutinize factual and evidentiary part in the instant case applying the same principles of law. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, no other criminal or civil case has been lodged by any of the party against each other. Appellant - wife has declared that she is abandoning her right for maintenance against the respondent. Appellant - wife has substantiated the allegations of maltreatment at the hand of respondent - husband in her statement before the Court which have been made basis in the petition for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 32 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 decree of divorce. In examination-in-chief filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, appellant - wife has alleged that she is residing away from the appellant since last 4 years (on the date of filing affidavit i.e. 22.08.2013). After 21.01.2013, no cohabitation has taken place between them. The respondent has neither fulfilled the marital obligations nor has enquired about her well being after that. She and her family members had made several efforts to amicably settle the dispute, but no solution could be found out, hence, petition for divorce was filed. She has leveled allegations of maltreatment at the hand of her husband and in-laws. As has been mentioned in the petition, she has also leveled allegations about her husband on the demand of dowry of Rs.25 lacs against respondent, her husband. She has further stated that when she informed about this to her parents about maltreatment at the hand of her in-laws, her parents and relatives tried to amicably settle the dispute, but no solution in this regard could be found out.
Even after assurance that the respondent will not repeat his mistakes, he did not mend his ways and repeatedly maltreated her. Specific instances of maltreatment have been mentioned in para 6 to 17 of the examination-in-chief.
The allegation with regard to intimacy of respondent with one of his official Nupur Verma has also been leveled and most of the emphasis in her cross-
examination from respondent side has been to rebut the same. Even if it is accepted that the allegation with regard to illicit relationship of respondent with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 33 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 his official Nupur Verma is not found proved, even then other instances of her persistent harassment at the hands of respondent vividly narrated in examination-in-chief still exists which themselves are sufficient to make family life hell making it impossible to live with such a person.
20. It is true that there is no straight jacket formula for ascertaining behavior of as spouse which may be termed as cruelty coming under the purview of Section 13 of HMA. To someone even physical assault may not be an act of cruelty, but the other one even browbeating and disgraceful words may harass him or her. It depends upon the upbringing of each individual and it has been recognized by the Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove. In the instant case where wife is a well educated, who has obtained MBA Degree cannot be treated like rustic villager. Specific circumstances of maltreatment at the hand of respondent - husband which have been mentioned by the appellant
- wife could not be effaced even after she was subjected to lengthy cross-
examination by the respondent. It is apparent from the record that Banwarilal Gupta - Fufa (husband of maternal aunt) of the appellant, Neelam Agrawal -
mother of the appellant, Parmanand Agrawal - father of the appellant had filed their affidavits in support of the appellant, but did not appear for cross-
examination, therefore, their statements have not been considered.
21. To rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 34 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 Arun Garg has examined himself and also examined Asha Devi - his mother, Vinod Garg - his father, Shalabh Jain and Ajay Garg in support of his case.
From perusal of the statements of the respondent-husband and witnesses in support thereof, it is apparent that they have tried to controvert the side of appellant, but specific instances of cruel treatment at the hand of her husband raised by appellant could not be totally effaced. It is also to be noted that as per Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 it is not number of witnesses, but probative value of the witnesses is given weightage. It has been settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. It cannot be a ground to discard her testimony that she has examined only herself before the Court. Therefore, arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that appellant - wife has examined only herself is of no consequence.
22. When we scrutinize the evidence available on record in its entirety, it is apparent that continuous maltreatment and misbehavoiur at the hand of the respondent - husband has compelled the appellant to live away from the respondent and also to file divorce petition to annul her marriage with the respondent. After minutely scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the parties, we are of view that it is not a case where appellant can be said to be going to derive benefit from her own misdeeds, therefore, argument raised in this regard is also Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 35 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 irrelevant. The evidence adduced by the appellant - wife also gets support from the demeanor respondent - husband when we interacted with him in the Court room to settle the dispute. We have found that respondent - husband is a man of an irascible temperament and of domineering attitude. He also appeared to be ill tempered and discourteous in his conduct, when he giving back seat to his learned counsel started arguing the matter himself in a loud and aggressive tone and that too without taking permission of this Court. His submissions were found more in the nature of admonitions to the Court, as he sought to impress upon this Court that granting decree of divorce in favour of the appellant - wife could amount to rewarding her for her own alleged faults. Such conduct and tenure of argument were wholly unbecoming of a litigant and indicative of a lack of composure and respect expected in courses of judicial proceedings. The aforesaid temperament shown before the Court in itself is sufficient to prove the allegations leveled against him by the appellant - wife that he is a man of bad manners and ill tampered which has compelled her to live away from him and made it impossible to lead marital life within him.
23. As held by the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli (supra) and A. Jaychandra (supra), it is apparent that in the instant case it is found flowing from the evidence that marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and now due to misdeeds of the respondent, it has Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 36 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 become impossible for the appellant to live with him. In such cases, decree of divorce is to be granted as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli (supra). In the instant case, evidence on record is sufficient to establish that it is the respondent, who has treated the appellant with such acts which comes under the purview of cruelty and made it impossible for appellant - wife to live with him.
24. Respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Suman Singh (supra) and the judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arun Khatri (supra), Sanjeev (supra), Seema (supra), Rajendra (supra) and Sukhram Yadav (supra). After scrutinising the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we are of considered view that the judgments have been passed in peculiar factual matrix of those cases which are not in any way come to rescue of the respondent as in the instant case, cruelty and desertion as alleged by the appellant has been found proved by the evidence available on record. Instances of cruelty cited by the appellant cannot brush aside as general wear and tear in family life, but they are weighty enough to constitute cruelty as mentioned under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA for grant of decree of divorce. Mere fact that the respondent has filed petition for restitution of conjugal right and is not sufficient to discard the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. In the guise of showing his benevolence towards appellant, respondent has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which is an unscrupulous attempt of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 37 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020 the respondent for diverting attention of the Court towards his misbehaviour with the appellant and in view of this Court it is an eye-wash only and not a genuine concern for leading happy married life with the appellant.
25. It is worth mentioning here that in the instant case, appellant and respondent are living separately since last approximately 12 years and respondent - husband is still striving hard for making hell life of the appellant - wife by not allowing her decree of divorce. In similar situation Hon'ble Apex Court in para-83 in Naveen Kohli (supra) has taken cognizance of the aforesaid mentality and held as under:-
―83. Even at this stage, the respondent does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our minds that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again.‖
26. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful and perusal of the evidence adduced by both the sides, we are of considered view that findings recorded by Court below are suffering from factual and legal error. Allegations of cruelty and desertion have been established and stand duly proved. Appellant Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 14-11-2025 17:17:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32554 38 FA-590-2020 & 591-2020
- wife has succeeded to demonstrate grounds warranting interference in the impugned judgment of decree under appeal. The upshot of above analysis is that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and in not granting decree of divorce as prayed by appellant - wife and also committed legal and factual error in granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent - husband.
27. Resultantly, both these appeals are allowed. Impugned judgments and decree passed by the Court below are hereby set aside by allowing the appeals. Marriage between the appellant and respondent is hereby dissolved for all purposes. Let a decree be drawn accordingly and record of the Court below be sent back at earliest with the judgment and decree passed by this Court.
28. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in the record of connected appeal also.
Parties will bear their own costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 14-11-2025
17:17:06