[2026:RJ-JP:7506-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2483/2012 Smt. Anju @ Laxmi, Wife of Mukesh, D/o Ranmiwas aged 26 years, resident of Basadi Khandela Mod, Tehsil Srimadhopur, Dist. Sikar.

----Appellant Versus Mukesh S/o Ram Narayan, aged 30 years, resident of Ward No.17, Shastri Nagar, Sikar, Dist. Sikar.

Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. Neeraj Pal Ms. Ayushi Singh Ms. Sanjana Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Pareek for Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Sr. Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment

17/02/2026

1. This appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) was filed by wife, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of her divorce petition bearing Civil Miscellaneous Case No.47/2009 vide judgment dated 11.04.2012 by Additional District Judge, Neemkathana, District Sikar.

2. We have heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.

3. In brief, the relevant facts are that marriage between parties was solemnized on 13.02.2001; no child was born out of their wedlock; wife filed divorce petition on 20.08.2009 alleging inter alia that she was subjected to cruelty due to which she is living separately from her husband since about three years, hence, she prayed to dissolve her marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Divorce Petition was resisted by husband and in the reply, a counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights was made.

4. In support of allegation of cruelty, wife-appellant deposed her own statements as AW-1 and her father-Ram Niwas appeared as AW-2. The testimony of the statements of wife and her father has not been countered from the side of husband, since neither any cross-examination from both witnesses was made nor any counter evidence by husband was adduced.

5. It is noteworthy that during course of divorce petition, on an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite, husband was directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month vide order dated 10.11.2010, but since he miserably failed to pay the interim maintenance, hence, defence of husband was struck out vide order dated 08.03.2011.

6. Family Court, vide judgment impugned, not only dismissed the counter claim of husband for restitution of conjugal rights for want of any evidence, but also dismissed the divorce petition of wife fundamentally for the reason that younger sister of wife also entered into marriage with brother of husband and she didn’t appear in the witness box to support the allegations of cruelty made by wife against husband, hence, the Family Court drew an inference that no cruelty was committed with wife.

7. Having gone through the statements of wife and her father (AW-1 & AW-2), we find that it has been deposed that younger sister-Smt.Meenakshi, though was married with brother of her husband, but both of them started to live separately from the joint family and wife continued to live in the joint family, hence, wife alone was subjected to cruelty by her husband and family members of her in-laws for demand of dowry, beaten up and finally she was turned out from her matrimonial home. Such allegations of cruelty, have not been refuted by the husband. From the statements of wife and her father, the allegations of cruelty stand established and non-appearance of his younger sister, does not give any adverse inference against wife to hold that her allegations of cruelty are not proved.

8. Cruelty as a ground of divorce in matrimonial cases is seen as “human conduct” and “behavior” in the matrimonial relationship. In every case, cruelty need not be in form of a violent act or intentional, but it can be circumstantial and unintentional as well. In every matrimonial relationship, parties look for companionship, sharing, mutual confidence and cohesiveness. Maintaining a physical relationship and cohabitation between a married couple, ob