DR. VIJETA JHA vs ASHOK KUMAR JHA

1 / 23

CGHC010044772023 2026:CGHC:45313-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 29 of 2023
Dr. Vijeta Jha W/o Ashok Kumar Jha Aged About 40 Years R/o - Udyachal
Prangan, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Rajendra Jha Aged About 42 Years R/o -
Bandhwapara, Purani Basti , District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu &
n'ble Smt. Justice Sushma Sawant Ho
Judgment on Board
27/10/2026
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed
against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned
Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) in Case No.
HMA No. 475/2016 whereby application preferred by respondent/applicant
Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.11.03
18:37:57
+0530

2 / 23
(husband) under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for
short, "the Act of 1955"), seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the
respondent/husband filed an application under Sections 13(1)(i-a) of the
Act of 1955, before the Family Court, Raipur, seeking dissolution of his
marriage with the appellant/wife on the pleading inter alia that their
marriage was solemnized on 21.04.2014 at Durg in accordance with their
customary rites and rituals, but they resided together for only about two
months. According to applicant/husband, on 15.07.2014, non-applicant
/wife went to Rajnandgaon with her mother and brother to celebrate the
Madhur Shravani festival and thereafter refused to return to matrimonial
home at Raipur to reside with him, citing her responsibility to support her
parents and repay a loan. Despite his repeated requests, letters, and
attempts to contact her, she continued to reside separately at
Rajnandgaon. He further alleged that she had taken away the jewellery
and certain household articles given at the time of marriage. He also
alleged that the wife falsely accused him of being physically incapable of
establishing marital relations, causing him mental cruelty. He claimed that
she had deserted him without reasonable cause and that her conduct had
made continuation of the marital relationship impossible. Accordingly, he
issued a registered notice dated 16.11.2015, proposing dissolution of the
marriage by mutual consent. As the wife did not act upon the notice, he
sought a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)
(i-a) of the Act of 1955.

3 / 23
3. In her written statement, non-applicant/wife denied the allegations
made by the non-applicant/husband and pleaded that the parties resided
together for approximately three to four months at different intervals. She
stated that on 15.07.2014, she went to her parental home at Rajnandgaon
to celebrate the Shravani festival in accordance with social customs and
with the consent of the husband and his parents. Although the husband
had assured her that he would come to take her back, but he never did so.
She further pleaded that the husband and his family subjected her to
mental and physical harassment through taunts and humiliating behaviour.
She also stated that, following the death of husband's mother on
04.01.2016, she stayed at her matrimonial home for about 16–17 days
and discharged her duties as a daughter-in-law. The wife denied having
deserted the husband and alleged that he himself had deserted her
without sufficient cause. She stated that she had taken a loan from Punjab
National Bank in 2012 to establish a clinic at Rajnandgaon prior to
marriage with the applicant. She further alleged that the husband had
retained her gold and silver jewellery on the pretext of keeping it safe in
his bank locker. According to her, the husband never established physical
relations with her and, shortly after the marriage, sought a mutual divorce
due to dissatisfaction with the dowry received. She also alleged that she
was treated like a maid at her matrimonial home. Entire marriage
expenses were borne by her parents. Her husband prepared false
documents to obtain decree of divorce. Therefore, application filed by the
applicant is baseless and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, learned Family
Court framed following main issues for determination:

4 / 23
“1. Whether the non-applicant subjected the
applicant to physical and mental cruelty?
2. Whether the non-applicant deserted the applicant
without reasonable cause for a continuous period of
at least two years immediately preceding the filing
of the divorce petition?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain a
decree of divorce from the non-applicant? ”
5. Learned Family Court upon appreciation of the pleadings and oral as
well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties, answered the
aforesaid issues in affirmative and held that the applicant/plaintiff had
proved the allegation of cruelty against the non-applicant/defendant.
Consequently, the application filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of
1955 was allowed by the impugned judgment granting decree of divorce
to the applicant/plaintiff (respondent herein), which is the subject matter of
challenge by non-applicant/wife (appellant herein) in the present appeal.
6. Assailing legality, validity, and correctness of the impugned judgment
and decree, learned counsel for the appellant/wife (non-applicant),
submits that learned Family Court committed manifest illegality and
perversity in granting decree of divorce by not relying upon the evidence
adduced by the appellant/non-applicant. It is contended that the appellant
never deserted the respondent but went to her parental home on
15.07.2014 to celebrate the Shravani festival with the consent of the
respondent and his family. Despite assuring her that he would take her
back, the respondent failed to do so. It is further submitted that the

5 / 23
appellant was subjected to mental and physical harassment at the
matrimonial home. She came back to her matrimonial home after death of
the respondent’s mother on 04.01.2016, stayed there for approximately
16–17 days, which negates any intention to desert the respondent.
Learned counsel further contends that the allegations of cruelty are false
and unsupported by cogent evidence. It is contended that proceeding
under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act
have been instituted by non-applicant/wife after filing of application under
Section 13 of the Act of 1955, therefore, learned Family Court should not
have recorded finding that, it amounted to cruelty on the applicant.
Learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and
evidence, ignored the appellant’s defence, and erroneously granted a
decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband, therefore, this
appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and decree be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit
that the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court
are based on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence
available on record and warrant no interference by this Court. It is
contended that the parties resided together for only about two months
after their marriage, whereafter the appellant/wife left the matrimonial
home on 15.07.2014 and, despite repeated requests and efforts by the
respondent to bring her back, refused to resume conjugal relationship.
Learned counsel would further submit that the appellant made false and
humiliating allegations regarding the respondent’s physical incapacity to
establish marital relations, thereby causing him mental cruelty. It is argued
that the appellant voluntarily withdrew from the matrimonial relationship

6 / 23
without reasonable cause and continued to reside separately, despite the
respondent’s efforts to reconcile. Learned counsel would contend that the
appellant’s allegations of harassment, dowry-related dissatisfaction, and
retention of jewellery are false, unsubstantiated, and intended to evade
her own conduct. It is further submitted that the appellant’s brief visit to the
matrimonial home following the death of the respondent’s mother does
not, by itself, negate the established circumstances of separation.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have carefully perused the record of the Family Court.
9. The appellant/wife has challenged the impugned judgment and decree
whereby learned Family Court allowed the application filed by
respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955 granting
decree of divorce to respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty. The
factum of marriage is not in dispute. It is an admitted position that the
marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.04.2014 in
accordance with their social customs.
10. Section 13 of the Act of 1955 provides for grant of decree of divorce in
certain cases. It enacts that any marriage solemnized whether before or
after the commencement of the Act may be dissolved on a petition
presented either by the husband or by the wife on any of the grounds
specified therein. Clause (i-a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 envisages
that a decree of divorce may be passed by a Court on the ground that
after solemnization of marriage, opposite party has treated the petitioner
with cruelty. Expression ‘cruelty’ includes both (i) physical cruelty; and (ii)
mental cruelty. Cruelty is not defined in the Act of 1955. Physical cruelty

7 / 23
can be proved by oral and documentary evidence. As far as mental cruelty
is concerned, the same has to be decided based on the facts and
circumstances of each case taking into consideration the social standing of
the parties.
11. In the present case, respondent/husband (applicant) has enumerated
various acts of cruelty alleged to be committed by the appellant/non-
applicant (wife). The law on a wife's cruelty against her husband is not as
clear as the other way around. The concept of cruelty under matrimonial
law has traditionally been discussed in the context of a husband's conduct
towards his wife. There are instances where a wife may be found to have
treated her husband with cruelty because cruelty is a matter of conduct,
not gender. Matrimonial law does not presume that only one spouse is
capable of committing cruelty. Whether the husband or the wife has been
cruel depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
12. In order to examine the act of cruelty, the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 511, would be a relevant guideline wherein the Court has
indicated certain illustrative instances at para 101 whereby the inference
of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 reads as under :-
“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate
some instances of human behaviour which may be
relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”.
The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs
are only illustrative and not exhaustive:

8 / 23
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the
parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as
would not make possible for the parties to live with
each other could come within the broad parameters of
mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly
clear that situation is such that the wronged party
cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such
conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount
to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of
manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a
degree that it makes the married life for the other
spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of
deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one
spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time
may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render
miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of
one spouse actually affecting physical and mental
health of the other spouse. The treatment complained
of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be
very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect,
indifference or total departure from the normal
standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental
health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to
mental cruelty.

9 / 23
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy,
selfishness, possessiveness, which causes
unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset
may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground
of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and
tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life
would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the
ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and
a few isolated instances over a period of years will not
amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent
for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it
extremely difficult to live with the other party any
longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of
sterilisation without medical reasons and without the
consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the
wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical
reason or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to
mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse
for considerable period without there being any
physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
marriage not to have child from the marriage may
amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the

10 / 23
matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does
not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it
shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of
the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to
mental cruelty.”
13. The burden of proving the issues framed by the learned Family Court
squarely rested upon the respondent/applicant-husband. In order to
discharge the said burden, respondent/applicant Ashok Kumar Jha,
entered the witness box as AW-1 and produced various documents
including the documents with regard to proceedings initiated by appellant-
wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act
against the respondent/husband and report lodged by non-applicant to the
concerned police station showing her unwillingness to reside with the
applicant.
14. With regard to the allegation of cruelty against him by the non-
applicant/wife, the applicant, Ashok Kumar Jha (PW-1), has primarily
deposed that, as per social custom, the parents of the non-applicant were
required to invite him to participate in the celebration of the
Madhushravani festival; however, no such invitation was extended to him.
He has further stated that he made several attempts to persuade the non-
applicant to resume cohabitation by writing letters to her and contacting
her through mobile phone, but she refused to join his company. According
to him, such conduct on the part of the non-applicant amounts to cruelty.
He has also alleged that the non-applicant falsely accused him of being

11 / 23
physically disabled. He further stated that, although he was physically fit
and willing to establish a physical relationship with the non-applicant, she
avoided establishing such a relationship on the pretext of suffering from
stomach pain, which caused him mental agony. He was subjected to an
extensive cross-examination by the non-applicant. In paragraph 18 of his
cross-examination, the applicant, Ashok Kumar Jha (PW-1), denied the
suggestion that he had subjected the non-applicant to harassment after
marriage on account of her failure to bring dowry.
15. On the other hand, non-applicant (NAW-1), in paragraph 31 of her
cross-examination, admitted that she had never lodged any complaint
alleging harassment against the applicant during her stay in matrimonial
home at Raipur. Further, in paragraph 28 of her cross-examination, she
admitted that, after the applicant filed an application seeking dissolution of
marriage, she instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure before the competent Court, which was dismissed on
23.10.2018. She further deposed that, after the dismissal of the
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she instituted a case under the
Domestic Violence Act against the applicant. In paragraph 33 of her cross-
examination, she reiterated that the proceedings under the Domestic
Violence Act were instituted before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Rajnandgaon, after dismissal of her application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. The said proceedings were also dismissed on 25.01.2022,
and the certified copy of the order of dismissal has been exhibited as Ex.
P-29.

12 / 23
16. In paragraph 24 of her cross-examination, non-applicant Dr. Vijeta Jha,
th
admitted that she had come to Rajnandgaon on 14 June 2017 to
celebrate the Madhurshravani festival. Further, in paragraph 36 of her
cross-examination, she admitted that she had also come to her parental
th
home on 15 July 2014 to celebrate the Madhushravani festival and had
been residing there since then. In this regard, the applicant-husband was
also subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the non-
applicant. In paragraph-16 of his cross-examination, applicant-husband
th
admitted that the non-applicant-wife went to her parental home on 15
July 2014 to celebrate the Madhushravani festival. Thus, in view of the
categorical admissions made by both parties in their respective cross-
examinations, it stands established that the non-applicant-wife went to
th
Rajnandgaon on 15 July 2014 to celebrate the Madhushravani festival
and had been residing at her parental home since then.
17. Thus, from the said evidence itself, it is clearly appearing that the non-
applicant had come to her parents' house on 15.07.2014 to celebrate
Madhurshravani festival, after that she did not return to her in-laws' house,
she has been staying at her parents' house since coming to her parents'
house to celebrate Madhurshraavni festival.
18. It is further evident from the record that the non-applicant-wife instituted
proceedings against the applicant-husband under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, and also
initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Rajnandgaon. Both proceedings were instituted on substantially similar
allegations against the applicant-husband. However, both cases came to

13 / 23
be dismissed, as the non-applicant-wife failed to establish the allegations
levelled by her.
19. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the documents filed by the
applicant-husband, marked as Ex. P-16 and Ex. P-17. Ex. P-16 is a copy
of the application submitted by the non-applicant-wife to the Officer-in-
Charge, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, obtained under the Right to
Information Act, whereas Ex. P-17 is a copy of another application
submitted by her to the said police station. Both applications are dated
08.09.2014. A perusal of these documents reveals that the non-applicant-
wife had specifically stated therein that she was not submitting the
applications with a view to initiating any action against her husband or his
other family members. She further expressed that, at that stage, she did
not wish to take any action against them and voluntarily desired to reside
at her parental home. She also requested that she be permitted to live
peacefully at her parental home. In her evidence, non-applicant has
accepted her signature which makes it clear that both the reports have
been given by herself in the police station of Rajnandgaon.
20. A perusal of Ex. P-18, which contains the counselling proceedings
conducted by the Women's Cell, Rajnandgaon, further reveals that the
non-applicant-wife had categorically stated therein that she did not wish to
undergo counselling or pursue any further proceedings before the
Women's Cell.
21. From the evidence on record and the pleadings made above, it is
concluded that the non-applicant has been voluntarily residing at her
parents' home without sufficient cause.

14 / 23
22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 194 while allowing the appeal filed by
appellant/husband seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty
meted out to him by the wife, held as under :
“11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is
cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated
above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless,
defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his
family members and colleagues, which would definitely
have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his
peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are
justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because
no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the
accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such
accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the
Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). However, if it
is found that the allegations are patently false, then there
can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a
spouse levelling false accusations against the other
spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all
the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed
another complaint alleging that her husband along with
some other persons had trespassed into her house and
assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not
only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self
inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were
launched against the wife under Section 182 of IPC. “
23. In case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC
226 , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus :

15 / 23
“34. In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondent-
wife has caused by her conduct mental cruelty to the
appellant-husband and the marriage has irretrievably
broken down. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both
sides of pain and anguish. In this Court the respondent-
wife expressed that she wants to go back to the appellant-
husband, but, that is not possible now. The appellant-
husband is not willing to take her back. Even if we refuse
decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, there are
hardly any chances of the respondent-wife leading a
happy life with the appellant-husband because a lot of
bitterness is created by the conduct of the respondent-
wife.”
24. In the cast as hand, it is the case of applicant/husband that his
wife/non-applicant left the matrimonial home with her own freewill on the
ground that she does not want to reside in the company of her husband.
After leaving matrimonial home, she also gave written intimation to
concerned police station through information letter filed as Ex.P-16 and
Ex.P-17 to this effect. Submission of application/information to concerned
police station (Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17) is in fact admitted by non-applicant
in her evidence as discussed above.
25.
In the counselling proceeding recorded by police also
non-applicant/wife had made statement that she did not want to reside
with applicant/husband and such proceeding recorded is also signed by
her which is also accepted and admitted by her.
26. Cohabitation is one of the essential foundations of a successful
matrimonial relationship. While examining the ground of cruelty pleaded in
the petition, the Court is required to consider the overall conduct of the

16 / 23
parties and the manner in which they have discharged their respective
matrimonial obligations. Depriving one spouse of the opportunity to enjoy
normal matrimonial life, including the companionship and conjugal
relationship of the other spouse, without reasonable justification, may
amount to mental cruelty.
27. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of in case of Sonal Talpada Vs.
Veerbhan Singh [Civil Appeal No.8391 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C)
nd
No.10422 of 2025, decided on 2 June 2026] observed thus:
“ 22 . Marriage, in its legal and constitutional dimension,
can never be reduced to a mere contractual intersection
of individual rights, nor can it be viewed strictly through
the narrow lens of a petition for conjugal rights. It is a
deeply personal and social partnership built on mutual
respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility.
When two parties enter into matrimony, they weave a
tapestry of interdependence that demands a continuous
balancing of interests. Conjugal rights do not exist in a
vacuum; they are the structural counterparts to conjugal
duties. To demand the fulfillment of the former while
willfully abandoning the sanctity of the latter is to
undermine the very essence of the institution.
Matrimony, therefore, is not a one-sided right to be
enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support,
fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one
are always tied to the duties they owe to the other.
Persistent withdrawal from the foundational aspects of
marriage may have legal consequences while
evaluating allegations of mental cruelty. “
28. In case of Vidhya Viswanathan vs Kartik Balakrishnan reported in
(2014) 15 SCC 21 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no allowing a

17 / 23
spouse to establish a spouse to establish physical relationship for a long
time amounts to mental cruelty to other spouse.
29. Apart from above act of mental cruelty committed by appellant-wife
upon the respondent/husband another act of her which also amounts to
mental cruelty is that she made absolutely false allegation upon him. In
para-5 of her written statement, it is pleaded that respondent/husband
was not permitting the appellant/wife to enjoy the conjugal relationship,
and further that for not getting sufficient dowry mounted pressured to get
mutual divorce. In application filed under Section 125 Cr.PC. it is pleaded
that her husband levelled allegation of theft and on her character, thereby
harassed her. Copy of application is Ex.P-5. Such allegation is not made
in application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. Filing of false case one
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and another case under Domestic Violence
Act also amounts to mental cruelty.
30.
In case of Narasimha Sastry Vs. Suneela Rani reported in (2020) 18
SCC 247 , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched
by the respondent against the appellant under Section
498-A IPC making serious allegations in which the
appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately
resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under
Section 498-A IPC not only acquittal has been
recorded but observations have been made that
allegations of serious nature are levelled against each
other. The case set up by the appellant seeking
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been
established. With regard to proceeding initiated by the
respondent under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court

18 / 23
[Narsimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine
Hyd 714] made the following observation in para 15 :
(Rani Narsimha Sastry case [Narsimha Sastry v.
Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 714] , SCC
OnLine Hyd)
“15. … Merely because the respondent has
sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC, they cannot be said to be valid
grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by
the respondent amounts to cruelty.”
The above observation of the High Court cannot be
approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file
complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal of his or
her grievances and lodge a first information report for
an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR
cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But, when a
person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of
the allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC,
levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be
accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the
husband. As per the pleadings before us, after parties
having been married on 14-8-2005, they lived
together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are
separately living for more than a decade now.”
31. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported
in ( 2023) 17 SCC 433 observed thus:
“9. The High Court in appeal, came to the conclusion
that the mere fact that the respondent did not allow
her husband to enter his house on 29-11-1998, would
not prove that it was her intention to bring
cohabitation permanently to an end and therefore the
ground of dissolution of marriage on desertion was

19 / 23
not made out. As far as filing of various complaints
under Sections 323, 324 and 498-AIPC are
concerned, the High Court was of the view that mere
filing of such complaints, or their result in acquittal
would not amount to cruelty, as the wife was only
exercising her options available to her under the law.
Moreover, what has to be seen are also the
circumstances under which these complaints were
filed.
x x x
x x x
15. The High Court has taken a view that mere filing
of criminal cases against the appellant husband
would not constitute cruelty. All the same, the number
of criminal cases filed by the respondent wife against
the appellant husband are far too many which have
been discussed above. All these cases have either
resulted in discharge or acquittal of the appellant
husband, if not before the pronouncement of the
judgment of the Delhi High Court but definitely after
the pronouncement of the judgment [Kavita v.
Rakesh Raman, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1768] of the
Delhi High Court. Moreover, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [Naveen
Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558] held that
repeatedly filing of criminal cases by one party
against the other in a matrimonial matter would
amount to cruelty and the same was reiterated by a
Division Bench of this Court in K. Srinivas Rao v.
D.A. Deepa [K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5
SCC 226 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 775 : (2013) 2 SCC
(Cri) 963] .
x x x
x x x

20 / 23
21. The view [Kavita v. Rakesh Raman, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 1768] taken by the Delhi High Court in
the present case that mere filing of criminal cases by
the wife does not constitute cruelty as what has also
to be seen are the circumstances under which cases
were filed, is a finding we do not wish to disregard
totally, in fact as a pure proposition of law it may be
correct, but then we must also closely examine the
entire facts of the case which are now before us.
When we take into consideration the facts as they
exist today, we are convinced that continuation of this
marriage would mean continuation of cruelty, which
each now inflicts on the other.”
32. In case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita reported in (2014) 16 SCC 34,
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“5. The respondent wife has admitted in her cross-
examination that she did not mention all the incidents
on which her complaint is predicated in her statement
under Section 161 CrPC. It is not her case that she
had actually narrated all these facts to the
investigating officer, but that he had neglected to
mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly
indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a
contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High
Court that the criminal complaint was “ill advised”.
Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had
been informed of the acquittal of the appellant
husband and members of his family. In these
circumstances, the High Court ought to have
concluded that the respondent wife knowingly and
intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to

21 / 23
embarrass and incarcerate the appellant and seven
members of his family and that such conduct
unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
33. Reverting to the facts of the present case, upon a careful and
comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the
respondent/husband has successfully established that the conduct of the
appellant/wife constituted mental cruelty within the meaning of Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The evidence on record,
particularly the admissions made by the appellant/wife in her cross-
examination and the documents exhibited as Ex. P-16, Ex. P-17 and Ex.
P-18, establishes that she had voluntarily withdrawn from the matrimonial
home and expressed her unwillingness to resume cohabitation with the
respondent/husband. Further, the proceedings initiated by the
appellant/wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were
instituted subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition by the
respondent/husband. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the
appellant/wife that the learned Family Court erroneously relied upon the
dismissal of the said proceedings, which had not been pleaded as a
ground for seeking divorce, does not materially affect the findings
recorded on the basis of the other independent oral and documentary
evidence available on record. The aforesaid evidence, when considered
cumulatively and in the backdrop of the entire matrimonial relationship,
sufficiently establishes the respondent/husband's case of mental cruelty.

22 / 23
34. The appellant/wife has failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or
error of law in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family
Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. The evidence on record clearly establishes that appellant/wife
treated the respondent/husband and his family members with mental
cruelty and also withdrew from his society without any reasonable cause
for the statutory period prescribed under the Act of 1955. Despite sincere
efforts made by the respondent/husband to restore the matrimonial
relationship, the parties have failed to resume cohabitation, and there
appears to be no reasonable possibility of reconciliation between them.
They have been living separately for a considerable period and the
material on record indicates that mutual trust and confidence, which
constitute the very foundation of a matrimonial relationship, have
completely eroded. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
there appears to be no reasonable possibility of the parties resuming
conjugal relationship or leading a peaceful matrimonial life.
35. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to
herein-above, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded
by the learned Family Court are based on a proper appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence available on record. The impugned judgment
neither suffers from any perversity nor discloses any error of law or fact
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
36. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022

23 / 23
passed in Case No. HMA No. 475/2016, whereby application filed by the
respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) seeking dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and a decree of
divorce has been granted, are hereby affirmed.
37. Let a decree be drawn accordingly.
S Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant)
Judge Judge
Praveen