[2025:RJ-JP:26257-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2060/2017 Ratiram Shukla S/o Shri Nandram, B/c Raigar, R/o Village And Post Karana, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar Raj.

----Appellant Versus Smt. Kishandevi W/o Shri Ratiram Shukla D/o Bhanwarlal Raigar, B/c Raigar, R/o Village Sedhusingh Ki Dhani, Post Badnagar, Tehsil Kotputali, Via Pawta, District Jaipur Raj.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Gurjar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

15/07/2025

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as ‘husband’) under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1955’) against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2017 passed by learned Court below whereby the application filed on behalf of the husband filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.02.1991 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and the husband filed a divorce petition in the year 2010 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘wife’) stating therein that the behaviour of the wife, from the very beginning, was cruel to the husband and most of the times, she was staying with her own parents. It was further stated that she does not want to go and live with the parents of the husband and asked him to live separately. It was further stated in the application that his wife denied him cohabitation many a time and when she left her matrimonial home in the year 2008, she never turned back to stay with the husband. Lastly, prayed for granting the decree of divorce.

3. The wife submitted reply to the said application and denied the allegations leveled by the husband. She further stated in her reply that her husband and his family members demanded dowry from her, on account of which she has lodged the criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the husband. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed the following issues:

Þ1& vk;k vizkFkhZ;k izkFkhZ dh oSokfgd iRuh gS] mldk fookg rkjh[k 17-02-1991 ds Ik'pkr~ vizkFkhZ;k dk O;ogkj izkFkhZ ds lkFk Øwjrkiw.kZ jgk gS\

2& vk;k vizkFkhZ;k izkFkhZ dk fnukad 16-02-2008 ls ifjR;kx dj mldks lgokl ls oafpr dj vius ihgj jg jgh gS vkSj mlds }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk jgus ls badkj fd;k\

3& vk;k izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ;k ls ;kfpdk esa vafdr vk/kkjksa ij rykd dh fMØh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4& vuqrks"k\Þ

5. Husband, in support of his contentions, submitted his own evidence as AW-1, evidence of AW-2 namely Gokul Chand and AW3 namely Shanker Lal and submitted documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.15.

6. The wife, in support of her contentions, submitted her own evidence as NAW-1, evidence of NAW-2 namely Prakash Chand and and NAW-3 namely Gokul Chand.

7. Thereafter, the learned Court below, after recording the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the application filed on behalf of the husband vide its judgment and decree dated

09.03.2017.

8. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated

09.03.2017, the husband filed the present appeal.

9. Counsel for the husband submits that the findings recorded on issues no.1 and 2 by the Court below are perverse. Counsel further submits that the wife has lodged false criminal case against the husband under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in which he was acquitted by the concerned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 05.10.2016. Counsel further submits that the wife is living separately since the year 2008 and she has denied co- habitation to him and she has deserted him. Lastly, prayed for allowing this appeal.

10. Counsel for the wife opposed the submissions made on behalf of the husband. Coun