Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Gajendra Singh, JJ.
Richa v. Ankush Agrawal (Singhal)
First Appeal No. 581 of 2024 (Indore): against the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2023 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in HMA Case No. 2451 of 2021; Decided on 6.5.2025
(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13(1)(ia) -- mental cruelty -- husband left wife to counter financial demands by lenders and even face allegations of conspiracy with husband in financial embezzlement -- husband opted easy way of desertion but wife was facing challenges of life and also taking care of child -- act of husband amounts to "economic abuse, financial abuse or economic violence" -- expression “cruelty” as used in S. 13(1)(ia) extends to cover economic abuse, financial abuse and economic violence -- wife proved ground of cruelty. [Paras 11 & 12]
(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13(1)(ia) -- mental cruelty -- economic abuse, financial abuse and economic violence -- circumstances where husband economically controls woman using tactics such as exploitation, manipulation, denial, deprivation; and controls every resource and necessity including disposal of assets in which an aggrieved woman may have interest, besides prohibition and restriction of continued access to resources and facilities that she is entitled to enjoy in domestic relationship. 1988 (1) HLR 169 followed. 2023 SCC Online Del. 5535 relied on. [Para 12]
(3) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13(1)(ib) -- desertion -- husband left wife to counter financial demands by lenders and even face allegations of conspiracy with husband in financial embezzlement -- husband opted easy way of desertion but wife was facing challenges of life and also taking care of child -- statutory period of desertion, i.e., 2 years completed at time of filing petition -- respondent/husband did not mark appearance in High Court despite publication of summons in daily newspaper -- his parents and brother appeared and intimated Court that they are unaware of his whereabouts as he had not contacted them or any relatives -- total period of 5 years 9 months sufficient to infer that respondent/husband possesses animus to desert wife -- there is no iota of evidence that conduct of petitioner/wife was responsible for husband/respondent staying away from company of wife -- it is his conduct that was responsible for his absconding from company of wife -- even "wilful neglect" is included in expression "desertion". [Paras 11, 14 to 18]
¼1½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ & ekufld Øwjrk & ifr us m/kkj nsus okyksa dh foÙkh; ek¡xksa ls fuiVus vkSj ;gka rd fd foÙkh; xcu esa ifr ds lkFk fey dj "kM;a= djus ds vfHkdFkuksa dk rd lkeuk djus ds fy, iRuh NksM+ fn;k & ifr us vfHkR;tu dk vklku ekxZ pquk ijarq iRuh thou dh pqukSfr;ksa dk lkeuk dj jgh Fkh vkSj larku dh ns[kHkky Hkh dj jgh Fkh & ifr dk —R; ^^vkfFkZd nq:i;ksx] foÙkh; nq:i;ksx ;k vkfFkZd fgalk** dh dksfV esa vkrk gS & /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ esa ç;qä vfHkO;fä ^^Øwjrk** ds foLrkj esa vkfFkZd nq:i;ksx foÙkh; nq:i;ksx vkSj vkfFkZd fgalk vkPNkfnr gS & iRuh us Øwjrk dk vk/kkj lkfcr fd;kA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12½
¼2½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13¼1½¼1d½ & ekufld Øwjrk & vkfFkZd nq:i;ksx foÙkh; nq:i;ksx vkSj vkfFkZd fgalk & og ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ftuesa ifr 'kks"k.k] Nylk/ku] bUdkj] opu tSlh ;qfä;ksa dk mi;ksx dj L=h dks vkfFkZd :i ls fu;af=r djrk gS rFkk mu lalk/kuksa vkSj lqfo/kkvksa ds çfr"ks/k vkSj mu rd fujarj igq¡p dh jksd ds vfrfjä ftudk miHkksx og ?kjsyw ukrsnkjh esa djus dh gdnkj gS] çR;sd lalk/ku vkSj vko';drk dks fu;af=r djrk gS ftuesa mu vkfLr;ksa dk O;;u lfEefyr gS ftuesa O;fFkr L=h dk fgr gks ldrk gSA 1988 ¼1½ ,p,yvkj 169 vuqlfjrA 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu fnYyh 5535 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12½
¼3½ fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13¼1½¼1[k½ & vfHkR;tu & ifr us m/kkj nsus okyksa dh foÙkh; ek¡xksa ls fuiVus vkSj ;gk¡ rd fd foÙkh; xcu esa ifr ds lkFk fey dj "kM;a= djus ds vfHkdFkuksa dk rd lkeuk djus ds fy, iRuh NksM+ fn;k & ifr us vfHkR;tu dk vklku ekxZ pquk ijarq iRuh thou dh pqukSfr;ksa dk lkeuk dj jgh Fkh vkSj larku dh ns[kHkky Hkh dj jgh Fkh & vthZ çLrqr djus ds le; vfHkR;tu dh dkuwuh vof/k vFkkZr~ 2 o"kZ iw.kZ gks x, Fks & nSfud lekpkji= esa leu ds çdk'ku ds ckotwn çR;FkhZ@ifr mPp U;k;ky; esa milatkr ugha gqvk & mlds ekrk&firk vkSj HkkbZ milatkr gq, vkSj U;k;ky; dks lalwfpr fd;k fd mUgsa mldk irk&fBdkuk Kkr ugha D;ksafd mlus muls ;k fdlh ukrsnkj ls laidZ ugha fd;k & 5 o"kZ 9 ekl dh dqy vof/k ;g vuqeku djus ds fy, i;kZIr fd çR;FkhZ@ifr dk vk'k; iRuh dks vfHkR;ä djus dk gS & bl ckjs esa ys'kek= lk{; ugha fd iRuh ds lkgp;Z ls ifr@çR;FkhZ ds nwj jgus ds fy, vthZnkj@iRuh dk vkpj.k ftEesnkj Fkk & iRuh ds lkgp;Z ls ifr ds iyk;u ds fy, ifr dk gh vkpj.k ftEesnkj Fkk & ^^tkucw> dj mis{kk djuk** & Hkh vfHkO;fä ^^vfHkR;tu** esa lfEefyr gSA ¼iSjk 11] 14 ls 18½
JUDGMENT
Singh, J. -- 1. This first appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been preferred by the wife being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2023 in HMA Case No. 2451/2021 by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby the petition of wife/appellant for decree of divorce on the ground mentioned in section 13(1)(ia) & (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
2. Facts in brief are that appellant/wife was married to respondent/husband on 8.12.2009 as per Hindu customary rites and ceremonies including Saptpadi. On 9.3.2012 a son was born to the appellant and respondent/husband whose custody is with the appellant/wife and he is studying. Petitioner/appellant is post graduate in science stream but she was living a life of house wife in her matrimonial home. During her stay in the matrimonial home, respondent/husband obtained her signature without disclosing the full particulars of the contents of the documents and also got signature in the bank also and being a wife she does not question of the act of obtaining her signature by the husband. Thereafter appellant/petitioner came to know that respondent/husband has started a firm in the title of Olive Apparels at 706, Metro Tower, Near Mangal City, A.B Road, Indore and at 13, Navlakha, Kousalya Complex, Indore and misused the signature of the petitioner/wife. Respondent/husband never intimated the appellant/petitioner regarding Olive Apparels and made several transactions and issued bogus/forged cheque and committed economic irregularities and disappeared without any intimation on 30.7.2019. His whereabouts are not known despite continuous efforts. The missing report was also lodged by his father. Missing intimation has been published in the newspaper but respondent/husband did not appear and thus committed cruelty with the wife and also deserted her and this petition was filed on 8.12.2021 before the Family Court, Indore.
3. Notice was issued and it was unserved with a report that his whereabouts are not known to any one since two years and summons was also published in the Indore Samachar dated 12.4.2022. When respondent/husband did not appear then matter was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.9.2022 and appellant/petitioner examined herself as PW/1 and her brother as PW/2 and adduced documents Ex.P/1 to P/5.
4. Family Court, Indore discussed both the grounds of cruelty and desertion simultaneously and did not find proved any of the grounds assigning the reasoning that no documents have been adduced regarding Olive Apparels firm. No documents have been adduced that could establish that signature of wife/appellant has been forged by the respondent/husband. Petitioner had not make any complaint regarding cheating committed by the respondent/husband. The act of obtaining signature of the wife on the cheques and delivery to businessmen and thereafter disappearing does not constitute cruelty. The disappearance of the respondent/husband is under the pressure of criminal cases filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the lenders. All these transactions are in relation to business and does not constitute cruelty. His disappearance is not proved without reasonable cause and also does not fall within the category of desertion.
5. Challenging the judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that trial Court has committed error in appreciating evidence and drawing conclusions that cruelty and desertion are not proved.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. Following two questions arises for disposal of this appeal :
(i) Whether economic abuse by the husband constitute the cruelty that affords a ground for divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(ii) Whether abandonment of the wife due to circumstances created by his conduct amounts a reasonable cause to a plea of desertion?
8. Before proceeding further,
The court held that allegations of cruelty and desertion require clear evidence, which the wife/appellant failed to provide, leading to the dismissal of her application for divorce.
The court affirmed that desertion and cruelty, established through evidence, justify the grant of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, reinforcing the burden of proof on the petitioner.
The court established that mental cruelty and desertion were proven through unrefuted evidence, justifying the dissolution of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and substantiated instances of cruelty and desertion to support claims under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marri....
For a decree of divorce under cruelty or desertion, credible evidence substantiating these claims is essential. The court found no such evidence and upheld the Family Court's decision.
Divorce – Deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on part of deserting spouse to bring cohabitation to a permanent end – Every matrimonial dispute is....
Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
