[2026:RJ-JP:2154-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1272/2006 Smt. Indrajeet Kaur W/o Nirmaljeet Singh D/o Gurudeep Singh Sahani, R/o Kunj Market Plot No.B-106, Dholi Pyan Ke Pichhe, Mathura.

----Appellant Versus Nirmaljeet Singh S/o Shri Harvash Singh, R/o Prohit Mohalla, Bharatpur.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harmeet Singh for Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. Laxmi Kant Tailor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Judgment

19/01/2026

1. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

2. Appellant-wife is before us to challenge the decree of divorce dated 30.01.2006, passed in favour of respondent-husband on the ground of desertion in petition No. 24/2004 by Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred as “trial Court”).

3. Factual matrix between the parties is not in dispute that their marriage was solemnized on 29.04.1997 and out of their wedlock, one baby boy was born to appellant on 29.04.1999; since 25.07.2001, appellant left matrimonial company of her husband and started to live at her parental home at Mathura. Husband filed divorce petition on 17.03.2004 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the divorce petition, after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, learned trial Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of respondent-husband on the ground of desertion, though denied on the ground of cruelty and the judgment and decree of divorce dated 30.01.2006 has been challenged before us, by wife.

4. In the pleadings of divorce petition and in the statements of husband as also statements of his two witnesses, it has come on record that wife was having a job in Mathura and she was not willing to reside with her husband at Bharatpur, rather insisted her husband to shift Mathura and live at her parental home in Mathura. It has also come on record that after marriage, time and again, she voluntarily and without any just cause, was in habit of leaving Bharatpur, for going Mathura, nevertheless, when husband and his relatives requested her to come back, she visited Bharatpur unwillingly and stayed for a short period and later on went Mathura, where she gave birth to a boy on 29.04.1999. It has further come on record that thereafter again she was brought by appellant to Bharatpur but she did not stay at Bharatpur for a long time and left her matrimonial home from Bharatpur on 25.07.2001 and went Mathura along with her minor boy as also carried her belongings, entire stridhan and other articles. Thereafter, husband and his relatives tried several times for restitution of conjugal rights and went to Mathura to take appellant back to Bharatpur but she never turned up.

It has come on record that appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein wife appeared and denied for restitution of conjugal rights, hence, husband got dismissed such petition in default and then filed the instant petition of divorce.

5. From the record, it is apparent that wife in her statements, recorded as NAW-1 and in her cross-examination, candidly admits that she voluntarily left matrimonial company of her husband and her matrimonial home from Bharatpur and shifted to Mathura along with her son when his son was one and half years old and since then, has been continuously staying at Mathura. In her statements, she assigned reason to leave Bharatpur that her husband harassed her for dowry and she had an apprehension of threat to her life and liberty. Further, in her evidence, wife has admitted the fact that her husband time and again came Mathura to take her back to her matrimonial home at Bharatpur but she did not agree and when she denied to live and lead a married life with husband, petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by husband was also got dismissed by him.

6. In support of evidence of wife (NAW-1), her brother has al