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

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 751 of 2021 SMT. RAJKUMARI KAURAV Versus JITENDRA SINGH KAURAV Shri Anil Kumar Mishra with Ms. Harshita Mishra- learned Counsel for appellant-

wife.

Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma- learned Counsel for respondent- husband.

Both the parties are present in person.

ORDER Per: Justice Hirdesh The instant First Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the appellant (wife), challenging the judgment and decree dated 28th September, 2021, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (hereinafter referred to as “the Family Court”) in RCSHM No. 50 of 2017, whereby the petition filed by the respondent- husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed.

2. A few facts giving rise to the present appeal, as narrated therein, are that the marriage between the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife was solemnized on 17th February, 2012, at Village Badagaon No. 2, Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind, according to Hindu rites and customs. It was pleaded by the respondent-husband in his divorce petition filed on 11.04.2017 that the appellant came to her matrimonial home on 18th February, 2012, and subsequently went to her parental house on 20th February, 2012, as per the customary ritual of the first visit. It was further pleaded that during the appellant’s stay at her parental home, her father demanded financial assistance. Specifically, the respondent alleged that on 5th March, 2012, he transferred a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- from his Punjab National Bank account to an account in the State Bank of India, Alampur Branch, allegedly provided by the appellant’s father. It was further pleaded that the appellant’s father insisted upon the purchase of approximately five bighas of agricultural land near Badagaon No. 2 and made the appellant’s return to the matrimonial home conditional upon the completion of this transaction. Consequently, on 12th April, 2012, a registered sale deed (Exhibit P-51) for five bighas of land was executed in favour of the respondent before the competent Sub-

Registrar.

3. The appellant returned to the matrimonial home on 13th April, 2012, and resided there until 28th April, 2012, though the exact date is disputed between the parties. On 28th April, 2012, the respondent’s father allegedly took her back to her parental home on the pretext that her mother was unwell. On 29th April, 2012, when the respondent went to bring the appellant back, it is alleged that she refused to accompany him unless the land purchased on 12th April, 2012, was transferred in her name. Subsequently, on 30th August, 2012, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Case No. 595A/12) before the Family Court, Gwalior, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

4. During the pendency of the said petition, on 28th January, 2013, the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC; on 27th February, 2013, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; and on 5th February, 2013, she lodged a complaint before the Women’s Commission, which was dismissed on 26th July, 2013. Additionally, on 6th August, 2013, allegations were published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, alleging dowry demands and a fraudulent land transaction. Although the appellant filed applications on 12th March, 2013, and 12th September, 2013, expressing willingness to reside with the respondent, the respondent refused on 18th March, 2013, stating that multiple false complaints had been filed against him and his family. Ultimately, the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn and dismissed on 4th March, 2014.

5. During the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, on 29th April, 2015, the appellant accompanied the resp