IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT &

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA

nd

ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 610 of 2016 RAVINDRA VERMA Versus SMT. PREETI KHARE Appearance:

Shri Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Choubey - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Anuradha Shukla Appellant/husband is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

05.07.2016 , passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in Hindu Marriage Case No.76A/2014, whereby the divorce petition filed by the respondent/wife was allowed on the ground of desertion and the appellant/husband was directed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent - wife as a cost of streedhan within 2 months, failing which to pay additional interest @ 8% per annum.

2. Admittedly, the parties were married on 29.05.2004 and respondent/wife stayed in her matrimonial house hardly for a month; a divorce petition was earlier filed by wife registered as Case No.13A/2005 but it was dismissed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K the trial Court and the FA No.291/2006 preferred by wife was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court with an observation that parties may file appropriate application, if any new cause of action arises. It is also an admitted fact that issue of res-judicata was raised before the trial Court in second divorce case under issues No.1A and 1B and both of them were decided vide order dated 13.05.2015 against the respondent/wife but she did not challenge these findings under any cross appeal or cross objection. Thus, the findings given under them that the wife is not entitled to a divorce decree in her second petition on the grounds of cruelty and impotency of husband in the light of earlier decision has attained finality and is not assailable in the present appeal. The judgment passed by the Criminal Court in Criminal Case No.94/2007 by JMFC, Shahdol decision dated 7.11.2017 is also relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in which appellant/husband and his relatives were acquitted in a case of Sections 498-A IPC and 3 Dowry Prohibition Act registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the respondent-wife and this fact is not denied by the counsel for the respondent-

wife.

3. After the dismissal of her first divorce petition and also the first appeal, the respondent-wife filed the second divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty regarding demand of dowry and dowry harassment. The averments regarding cruelty involved the impotency of husband, forcing the wife to enter into physical relationship with the worker of the house and an apprehension about facing some unpleasant conditions of the colour of cruelty. Besides these, the ground of desertion was also raised claiming that Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K she was forced out of matrimonial house for not meeting the demands of dowry. A request for divorce was accordingly made with an additional request for return of streedhan including cash amount of Rs 4 lakh.

4. The second divorce petition was opposed by the appellant-husband by claiming that all the allegations of dowry demand, dowry harassment, impotency and asking wife to have sexual relationship with some other person are entirely false and in the light of earlier decisions, she was not entitled to raise them again. It was also stated that respondent-wife had herself left the house on 17.06.2004 along with her brother and did not come back despite the effort made by the appellant-husband in September 2004 by going to the parental house of wife and requesting her to come along with him. Though the divorce petition by wife was opposed by appellant on all grounds raised, but in paragraph 18 of his reply, he has categorically pleaded that he has had enough of it and cannot bear more pain and harassment on account of these allegations; additionally, he has lost trust in this marital relationship and is there