Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5316
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VISHAL DHAGAT, RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY, JJ
RAJESH PRASAD SHUKLA – Appellant
Versus
SMT.SHASHIKALA SHUKLA – Respondent
First Appeal No. 416 of 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Chandrahas Dubey
For the Respondents:
The acquittal of a husband in a false criminal case constitutes grounds for divorce based on cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce petition filed on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Court held that acquittal in a case under Section 498-A IPC amounts to cruelty, thereby granting divorce. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Judicial notice - Court can take judicial notice of judicial orders without formal proof as per Section 57 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A petition for divorce was initiated by the respondent on the basis of allegations of cruelty and a false FIR under Section 498-A was lodged against the appellant which was dismissed. They have been living separately since 1999.
Findings of Court:
Court concluded that the prosecution in the criminal case was a tactic to exert pressure against the appellant and therefore constituted cruelty, justifying the divorce decree.
Issues: The principal inquiries pertained to the allegations of cruelty and the implications of the FIR lodged against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ascertained that acquittal in a previous criminal proceeding and prolonged separation indicates a breakdown of marital relations which justifies the divorce.
Result: First appeal allowed; divorce granted on the grounds of cruelty.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. divorce requested due to false allegations and long separation. (Para 2) |
| 2. judicial notice of acquittal considered as evidence of cruelty. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. acquittal serves as a basis for establishing cruelty, warranting a divorce. (Para 8) |
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 416 of 2005 RAJESH PRASAD SHUKLA Versus SMT.SHASHIKALA SHUKLA Appearance:
Shri Chandrahas Dubey - Advocate for appellant.
ORDER Per: Justice Vishal Dhagat First appeal is filed under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against judgment and decree dated 28.03.2005 passed in Case No.67-
A/2004 by First Additional District Judge, Rewa.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) and Section 13 (1)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . Appellant was married to respondent on 01.06.1986 and after Gauna, respondent was living with appellant from 07.02.1990. Respondent does not want to live with appellant and she is living in her father's home. Appellant tried to bring her back but she refused to come along with appellant on one or the other pretext. They are living separately since 15.12.1999 for almost 27 years. Respondent made false Signature Not Verified allegation upon appellant that he is having illicit relationship with other woman. Respondent had lodged false FIR against appellant under Section 498-A of IPC. Appellant was tried in Criminal Case No.4663/2006 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa and by judgment dated 22.09.2007, appellant was acquitted. Court has given a finding that false cases were registered against appellant for putting him under pressure. Respondent failed to prove her case of cruelty and demand of dowry. It is submitted that since case filed by respondent under Section 498-A of IPC was dismissed and appellant was acquitted, therefore, same is a good ground for grant of divorce decree to appellant. It is also submitted that there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage since appellant and respondent are living separately since last 27 years. In these circumstances, prayer is made for allowing first appeal and to set- aside judgment and decree dated 28.03.2005 and grant decree of divorce in favour of appellant.
3. None appeared for respondent despite service of notice.
Advocate also did not appear in the case. It appears that respondent has also lost interest to contest the matter.
4. Respondent has been served and counsel has also entered appearance on behalf of respondent. Appeal is pending before this Court since 2005. Respondent is proceeded exparte.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
6. Appellant has examined himself as PW/1 and other witnesses Signature Not Verified namely Hinchlal as PW/2, Sanjeev Kumar as PW/3, Ram Niranjan as PW/4 and respondent examined herself as DW/1 and one Shobhnath as DW/2. Witnesses PW/2 & PW/3 were disbelieved as they had not stated that any incident took place before them and further they were unable to identify the voice of Shashikala, when they were overheard some words saying that Rajesh had kept his sister-in-law. Court has presumed that appellant had done second marriage and if in such condition, respondent is living separately then it cannot be said that she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Trial Court held that appellant had failed to prove that respondent treated him with cruelty. Respondent had stated that she wanted to live along with appellant and said statement was relied upon by the trial Court and on basis of said statement, it was presumed that appellant had married again and petition for divorce was dismissed.
7. Certified copy of judgment passed in criminal case is produced before this Court by counsel without filing any formal application for taking it on record. Said judgment in criminal case is not part of the record. However, said judgment passed in criminal case is taken into consideration as document produced before Court is certified cop
