Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vineet Kumar Sahu vs Smt. Vandana Alias Uma Sahu on 13 November, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58252
1 FA-1041-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 1041 of 2022
VINEET KUMAR SAHU
Versus
SMT. VANDANA ALIAS UMA SAHU
Appearance:
Shri Rajas Pohankar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ratnakar Prasad Mishra - Advocate for respondent.
JUDGEMENT
Per: Justice Vishal Dhagat Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by judgement and decree dated 07.05.2022 passed in RCSHM No. 1A/2018 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur. By said judgment and decree, petition for divorce was dismissed by trial Court.
2. Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that petition was filed on ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is submitted that respondent is suffering from mental illness and Insomnia since childhood. Said fact was suppressed from appellant and the family members by suppressing said fact got respondent married with appellant. Respondent behaved strangely at first night of the marriage. She always remained in tension and told various health issues to appellant and tried to jump from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 20-11-2025 17:50:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58252 2 FA-1041-2022 roof. She also tried to consume poison and threatened appellant that she will commit suicide. She could only sleep after taking sleeping pills. Respondent left appellant in August, 2016 and since then, appellant and respondent are living separately. Trial Court had committed an error of law in not relying upon pleadings and evidence adduced by appellant/plaintiff witnesses. Doctor was also examined before Court but trial Court did not believe the version and had committed an error in dismissing appeal.
3. None appeared for respondent during course of arguments and after entire arguments was over, counsel for respondent appeared and argued that conduct of appellant was cruel towards respondent. Respondent is still ready to live with him. No case is made out for grant of divorce. Appellant failed to prove that respondent had treated him with cruelty. Trial Court had not committed any error in arriving at finding that cruelty was not proved. There is no merits in appeal and same may be dismissed.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. On going through pleadings and evidence available on record, it is found that appellant and respondent were married on 24.04.2025 at Lakhnadon. Appellant had pleaded and adduced evidence that respondent suffers from mental sickness. To prove aforesaid facts, documents i.e. medical prescriptions Ex.P/22 to Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/30, were filed. Reliance is also placed on document Ex.P/33, which is an ikrarnama dated 13.03.2016, in which father of respondent Suresh Golhani admitted that his daughter suffers from mental illness. Police complaints dated 05.06.2016, 26.08.2016, 05.09.2016 and 02.03.2017 are also placed on record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 20-11-2025 17:50:16NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58252 3 FA-1041-2022
6. Trial Court has disbelieved the version of appellant on grounds that doctors had not stated anything substantial regarding mental illness. No abnormality is found in EEG dated 01.12.2015. Documents Ex.P/22 to Ex.P/28 are inconclusive to draw any conclusion of mental illness. Admission made in Ex.P/33 cannot be believed, as same was written under pressure by respondent when police complaints were filed.
7. Ex.P/4, Ex.P/5, Ex.P/6, Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9 are complaints made by appellant. In Ex.P/4, dated 02.03.2017, it was mentioned that respondent behaved disrespectfully towards family members and when matter was reported to respondent's family, they told appellant to give her tablets so that she will sleep. Doctor informed him that she was mentally sick. She also said to have fought with appellant and went to her parental home. In Ex.P/5 dated 05.06.2016, complaint was made that respondent is mentally sick and on 29.05.2016, she had eaten more tablets than normal and slept. On 30.03.2016 too, she had taken large dose of tablets. She repeatedly told appellant that she want to die. Ex.P/6 is non cognizable report given to police, wherein it was mentioned that respondent is mentally sick. She repeatedly fights with family members of appellant. Ex.P/8 is final report prepared by police Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in respect to offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against appellant. In said case, appellant has been acquitted by trial Court in RCT No. 07/2022 by its judgment dated 14.03.2024. Prosecution failed to bring home charges under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry of Prohibition Act. Ex.P/22 is EEG report. No abnormality or provocative Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 20-11-2025 17:50:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58252 4 FA-1041-2022 measures were seen in said EEG report. Respondent was also taken to Shree Ram Mental Health Clinic Jabalpur and prescriptions is placed on record as Ex.P/30. Ex.P/32 is ikrarnama given by respondent, in which she has admitted that she is suffering from Insomnia and is being treated by Dr. O.P. Raichandani and she will be responsible if any accident or untoward incident happens. Ex.P/33 is ikrarnama given by father of respondent, in which he has admitted that his daughter is being treated at Nagpur with Dr. Mujawar and after marriage, she is also being treated by Dr. O.P. Raichandani. Father has taken responsibility of any untoward incident if same happens. Said ikrarnama is of no consequence as same has not been signed by any person.
8. Witnesses have stated about mental sickness, Insomnia and regarding tension and various complaints made by respondent and misbehaviour of respondent to them. Treating doctor has also been examined. He has admitted that medicines which were being given to respondent were in respect to Insomnia, Tension and Anxiety. Said medicines are to be taken by respondent regularly. It has also been stated that mental condition of respondent was not good therefore EEG was done. It has also been stated that though EEG may be normal but patient may have mental sickness or illness and he/she may display the same. It has also been stated by him that in some cases, mental sickness may affect studies but not in all cases.
9. Considering evidence available on record, it has come to light that respondent is suffering from Insomnia and mental sickness. In Ex.P/32 respondent-DW-1 admits that she suffers from Insomnia. Doctor was also Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 20-11-2025 17:50:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58252 5 FA-1041-2022 treating respondent for mental sickness and was giving her medicine accordingly. Though, EEG appears to be normal but it has been stated in cross-examination that despite normal EEG, patient may be suffering from mental sickness and also shows signs of mental sickness. She was also being treated at Nagpur by doctors. Appellant has filed five complaints to police regarding mental sickness of respondent. It cannot be said that complaint was made without any basis. Appellant and respondent are living separately for long time i.e. from 2016 and said fact has also been admitted by the parties. Appellant was falsely implicated in criminal case and has been acquitted by trial Court. Appellant is unable to get marital satisfaction and pleasure after his marriage. In these circumstances, case of appellant is found to be proved that respondent has treated him with cruelty. There is complete breakdown of marriage between them. They are living separately since 2016 and there is no possibility of resumption of marital ties.
10. In view of aforesaid, appeal filed by appellant is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 07.05.2022 passed in RCSHM No. 1A/2018 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur is set aside. Marriage between appellant and respondent dated 24.04.2015 is dissolved.
11. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vkt
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Signing time: 20-11-2025
17:50:16