Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND PATHAK, HIRDESH, JJ.
Girja Alias Pooja - Appellant
Versus
Avinash Singh - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1781 of 2023
Decided On : 21-01-2025
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Divorce
Act Referred
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT: S.24, S.25, S.9
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.125(3)
Headnote
(B) Legal principle of mental cruelty - The court views each case based on the unique circumstances of the individuals involved and their conduct. The intent and behavior of parties are pivotal in such determinations. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
Appellant and respondent were married on 9th June 2011; disputes arose following allegations of dowry demands and refusal of cohabitation resulting in respondent's divorce application. Appellant claimed continuous harassment, while respondent cited her unwillingness to return.
Findings of Court:
Family Court concluded appellant's actions constituted mental cruelty, affirming respondent's grounds for divorce.
Issues: Did the appellant engage in mental cruelty towards the respondent justifying divorce?
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled the appellant's persistent refusal to live with the respondent and demands for living conditions supported claims of mental cruelty, satisfying the grounds for divorce under HM Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed and applications for maintenance and alimony rejected.
For the Appellant : R.K. Shrivastava
For the Respondent: S.N. Seth
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of divorce case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's arguments against allegations. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's examination of issues. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. concept of mental cruelty explained. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's analysis of evidence presented. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court affirms family court's judgment. (Para 17) |
| 8. dismissal of appeal and applications. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
HIRDESH, J.
1. The instant first appeal under Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT has been preferred by appellant (wife) challenging the judgment and decree dated 26th of July, 2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind (MP) in Case No.156/2021 (HMA) whereby application filed by respondent (husband) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT [in short ''HM Act''] seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of ''cruelty'' has been allowed.
2. It is not in dispute that marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized on 9th of June, 2011 at Welcome Garden, Bhind Road, Gwalior as per Hindu rites and rituals.
3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that respondent submitted divorce application, inter alia, alleging that after marriage, as long as appellant stayed with him, efforts were made to keep her happy, all her wishes were fulfilled and she was never harassed, she was always willing to stay at her maternal home in Gwalior, due to which, no cohabitation took place. Appellant did not return from her maternal home even after conciliation held at Police Counselling Centre on 24-10-2017. It is further averred that he had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HM Act in which, a decree was passed in his favour on 13-12-2019, but appellant did not turn up. Then, he filed an agreement for execution of decree, in which, the said agreement was rejected on 25-03-2021, as appellant is not living with him even after mediation proceedings. Appellant deliberately does not want to live with him without any valid reason, due to which, he was bound to file divorce application.
4. In reply, appellant refuted allegations of respondent. It has been averred by her that she faithfully fulfilled all her marital duties as wife but respondent and his family members used to demand rupees two lac more as additional dowry everyday. They used to harass her physically and mentally and due to non-fulfillment of dowry, respondent used to deprive her of cohabitation, due to which she could not have any child. When she went to her in-laws house with her brother in compliance with decree passed on 13-12-2019 consequent to application for restitution of conjugal rights, they were not allowed to enter the house of respondent. Now, she is ready to live with her husband- respondent, but respondent does not want to keep her with him without any reason. The divorce application has been filed on the basis of wrong facts. Hence, prayed for its dismissal.
5. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court framed issues and passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of respondent by allowing divorce application filed by respondent under Section 13(1)(i-a) of HM Act on the ground of ''cruelty''. Therefore, appellant is before us.
6. It is contended on behalf of appellant that learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree in favour of respondent without going through evidence available therein. Respondent and his family members used to beat and harass her with regard to demand of dowry and she was ousted from her in-laws house. In compliance of decree dated 13-12-2019 passed by Family Court consequent to application under Section 9 of the HM Act for restitution of conjugal rights, appellant was not allowed to enter the house of respondent and whenever she goes to the house of respondent, respondent does not allow her to enter house. Respondent and his family members used to harass her for dowry, as a result of which, she is residing with her
