SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Hirdesh, JJ.
Swati Patel (Smt.) v. Chandrabhan Patel
First Appeal No. 2033 of 2024 (Gwalior): against the judgment dated 5.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Datia in Case No. 173/2022 (HMA); Decided on 11.3.2025

Advocates:
Susant Tiwari for appellant;
Arun Dudawat and Rahul Jha for respondent.

Headnote:

(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13(1)(i-a) -- mental cruelty -- allegation of adultery -- appellantwife did not plead about adultery in divorce petition but during examination-in-chief, she referred the fact that her husband and sister-in-law were having illicit relationship -- same statement was reiterated by her in cross-examination -- however, she could not prove the same due to lack of evidence in that regard -- held -- such type of serious allegation of adultery on character of husband amounts to cruelty -- argument of appellant-wife that evidence without pleading cannot be considered, has no substance -- decree of divorce rightly granted. AIR 1975 SC 1534, AIR 2002 SC 2582, (2007) 4 SCC 511, (2020) 4 SCC 339, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and (2013) 2 SCC 114 followed. 2023 (1) JLJ 265 relied on. AIR 1994 SC 710 and 2013 (3) JLJ 328 referred to.

[Paras 16 & 17

(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 25 -- permanent alimony --requirement of filing application -- appellant-wife did not file application before Family Court -- held -- appellant-wife should have filed application before Family Court -- Family Court is the best suited Court for deciding prayer for grant of permanent alimony. 2019 (4) JLJ 308 and 2020 (2) MPLJ 561 referred to. [Para 20

¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13¼1½¼1&d½ && ekufld Øwjrk && tkjrk dk vfHkdFku && vihykfFkZuh&iRuh us fookg&foPNsn vthZ esa tkjrk dk vfHkokd~ ugha fd;k ijarq eq[; ijh{kk ds nkSjku mlus bl rF; dk mYys[k fd;k fd mlds ifr vkSj ifr dh HkkHkh ds v;qä laca/k Fks && ;gh dFku mlds }kjk çfrijh{kk esa nksgjk;k x;k && rFkkfi] ml Lkaca/k esa lk{; ds vHkko ds dkj.k og bls lkfcr ugha dj ldh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ifr ds pfj= ij tkjrk dk bl çdkj dk xaHkhj vfHkdFku Øwjrk dh dksfV esa vkrk gS && vihykfFkZuh&iRuh ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ lkj ugha fd vfHkopu ds fcuk lk{; ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh lgh çnku dh xbZA ,vkbvkj 1975 ,llh 1534] ,vkbvkj 2002 ,llh 2582] ¼2007½4 ,llhlh 511] ¼2020½4 ,llhlh 339] ¼2012½7 ,llhlh 288 rFkk ¼2013½ ¼2020½4 ,llhlh 339] ¼2012½7 ,llhlh 288 rFkk ¼2013½2 ,llhlh 114 vuqlfjrA 2023 ¼1½ ts,yts 265 voyafcrA ,vkbvkj 1994 ,llh 710 rFkk 2013 ¼3½ ts,yts 328 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17
¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 25 && LFkk;h fuokZfgdk && vkosnu djus dh vis{kk && vihykfFkZuh&iRuh us dqVqac U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu çLrqr ugha fd;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && vihykfFkZuhZ&iRuh dks dqVqac U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosnu çLrqr djuk pkfg, Fkk && LFkk;h fuokZfgdk çnku fd, tkus dh çkFkZuk fofuf'pr djus ds fy, dqVqac U;k;ky; lcls mi;qä gSA 2019 ¼4½ ts,yts 308 rFkk 2020 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 561 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 20

JUDGMENT

Hirdesh, J. -- 1. The instant appeal is filed by appellant-wife under section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with section 96 of the CPC against judgment and decree dated 5.10.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court District Datia in Case No. 173/2022 (HMA) whereby an application filed by respondent-husband seeking a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of HM Act on the ground of ''cruelty'' has been allowed.

2. It is not in dispute that appellant and respondent are husband wife and they entered into the wedlock on 9.2.2020 by performing all the customs and ritual which are essential to perform a Hindu marriage.

3. In brief the facts giving rise to present appeal are that respondent husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court Datia on the ground of cruelty and pleaded that on the very next day of marriage the appellant-wife told her husband that she has been forced to perform this marriage against her will and she refused to cohabit with respondent husband and their marriage could not have been consumed. Further, it has been alleged in the divorce petition that the appellant-wife expressed her will to study further and in turn her in-laws said that they will get the admission of her in Scindhia Kanya Vidyalay in B.A. Ist year situated in Bhander, but the appellant-wife wants to study further only in Gwalior, upon which in-laws of the appellant-wife expressed their inability looking to their poor financial condition, then appellant-wife got angry and threatened them to implicate in false allegations and left her matrimonial home. It was further alleged in the divorce petition that the appellant-wife returned after 15 days to her matrimonial home and demanded Rs. Thirty Thousand for the purpose of depositing fees of B.A. Ist year in Gwalior. When her in-laws refused to give her money then appellant-wife took all her ornaments along with her and left her matrimonial home and started living at her parental house.

4. It was further alleged that appellant-wife used to remain absent from her matrimonial home for a period of 10-15 days on regular basis.\ Due to which, Panchayat was called by the relative in which the appellant- wife demanded the divorce from the respondent/ husband. Parents of the wife abused the parents of husband in the Panchayat .Appellant-wife always ill treated her in-laws and threatened them to implicate them in false cases. On these grounds, respondent-husband filed divorce petition before the Family Court.

5. Appellant-wife submitted her written statement in the Family Court and denied all the allegations made by the respondent-husband in the divorce petition. It was pleaded by appellant-wife that marriage has already been consumed between appellant and respondent several times and she never refused to cohabit with respondent-husband. When marriage was performed, she was studying in Class-12th and she expressed her will before her in-laws to study further but because seats were not vacant in Bhander college so she took admission in Kamlaraja Girls College Gwalior and by the said act of appellant her in-laws opposed her. She further pleaded that her husband and in-laws were ill treating her in order to fulfill their greed of dowry and they were demanding Rupees Five Lacs from parents of the appellant. When appellant-wife refused to fulfill the said demand by saying that her parents already gave Rupees Fourteen Lacs as dowry at the time of marriage then her in-laws used to beat her and ousted her from their house. Her parents was not able to fulfill their demand of dowry, therefore, they ousted her from their house on 10.7.2022 and further in-laws of appellant-wife were not allowing her to study further. On these grounds prayer for rejection of divorce petition was made.

6. Family Court framed the issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties and after taking evidence of both the parties vide impugned judgment and decree, allowed the application filed by respondenthusband seek

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top