In matrimonial disputes, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. Minor discrepancies in dowry demands or delays in filing FIRs do not negate cruelty, and long-term separation without genuine efforts to reconcile constitutes desertion.

Order(Oral)

Per: Arun Monga, J

1. Appeal herein is directed against an order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Shahpura, District Bhilwara whereby the petition of the appellant filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter referred as ‘HMA’) for dissolution of marriage with the respondent was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2018 at Village Dewaria in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It was averred that sufficient dowry articles, including gold and silver ornaments, household items, and cash, were given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the appellant began residing at her matrimonial home and discharged her marital obligations.

2.1 The appellant alleged that, after some time, the respondent and his family members subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on account of alleged insufficiency of dowry and demanded an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and a four-wheeler. It was further alleged that upon non-fulfillment of these demands, she was beaten, dispossessed of her jewelry, and expelled from the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. On these grounds, she sought a decree of divorce.

2.2 The respondent, upon appearance, filed a reply admitting the marriage and the fact that the parties are living separately, but denying all allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and forcible expulsion. It was contended that the appellant stayed at the matrimonial home only briefly and thereafter voluntarily returned to her parental home to continue her studies. The respondent asserted that she has deserted him without cause and expressed willingness to resume cohabitation, further alleging that the petition was filed to facilitate her securing government employment.

2.3 The matter was adjudicated by the learned Family Court, Shahpura, District Bhilwara and vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2025 dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant.

2.4 Hence, the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2025 is perverse, illegal and contrary to the facts and material available on record, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. He states that the learned family Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 despite overwhelming and un-rebutted evidence establishing cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent, and has failed to properly consider the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as the settled principles governing matrimonial disputes.

3.1 He contends that the learned family Court has erred in disregarding the consistent and cogent testimony of the Appellant and her father, which clearly established persistent dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, and expulsion from the matrimonial home. He states that the findings of the family Court are based on selective appreciation of evidence, placing undue reliance on the self-serving statement of the Respondent while ignoring material evidence led by the Appellant, including the FIR and other supporting documents. He further contends that minor discrepanci