IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 1565 of 2018 NEELAM SINGH RAWAT Versus SMT. LALITA RAWAT Appearance:

Shri Asfaq Khan - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Aditya Pratap Singh on behalf of Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Anil Verma Appellant-husband has preferred this first appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 6.7.2018 passed in HMA Case No.149A/2016 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri, whereby the petition seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short HMA) filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

2. It is not disputed that marriage between both the parties was solemnized on 20.4.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals, but due to their wedlock they did not bless any child. It is also admitted that offence under Section 498-A of IPC has been registered against the appellant, his parents & sister Kavita. Therefore, vide judgment dated 7.5.2016 passed by JMFC, Shivpuri, they have been acquitted from all the charges.

3. Brief facts of the case of the appellant/petitioner is that after the marriage respondent/wife pressurized the appellant and his father to transfer the agriculture land in favour of the respondent and her brothers, when they refused to do so, then respondent started to misbehave with them and threatened them that if they would not fulfill her demand, she will falsely prosecute the appellant and his entire family. The respondent lodged a false FIR on the ground of cruelty against the appellant and his family members, but after the trial they have been acquitted. Respondent also filed a petition for grant of maintenance, same was also disposed of on the basis of compromise, but the respondent did not ready to fulfill his mental obligation towards the appellant and she does not establish physical relationship with the appellant. She is living separately from the appellant without any sufficient reason. Earlier he has filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA against the respondent, but she did not turn to appellant's home. Therefore, he filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of HMA before the Trial Court seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. Respondent/wife denied all these allegations in her written statement filed before the Trial Court stating that the appellant and his family members taunted her by saying you are sterile and frequently quarreled with her. They abused her in a filthy language and compelled to clean the dung of cattle. She lodged an FIR against them, but thereafter as matter has been amicably settled between them, even then the appellant and their family members were not allowing her to live with them and they are trying for solemnizing the second marriage of the appellant.

5. Learned Trial Court has framed certain issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant on the ground that appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, present appeal has been preferred before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record and the Trial Court without appreciating the evidence available on record dismissed the divorce petition on untenable and frivolous grounds. Based upon evidence available on record, appellant has successfully established that the respondent willfully and deliberately deserted him and committed cruelty with him. It is further contended that the respondent has lodged false and baseless reports and complaints, which also comes in the purview of cruelty. Hence, it is prayed that impugned jud