[2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2781/2007 Dr Ram Narayan Yadav S/o Shri Dhannalal Jatav, R/o Hingi, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota, at present posted at Government Primary Health Centre, Dei, District Bundi. ----Appellant Versus Smt Roopwati Peepal W/o Ram Narayan Jatav, present posted as Lecturer, Government College, Bundi. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.Prem Shanker Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sanjay Mehrishi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 02/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'husband') against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed by learned Family Court, whereby the application filed on behalf of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') before the learned Family Court. Husband stated that the marriage was solemnized in the month of June, 1985 as per the Hindu rites & customs and out of their wedlock, no child was born. Husband further stated that behavior of the wife towards him and his family [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (2 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] members was very cruel from very beginning and the wife started living separately since November, 1995. Husband further stated that the wife is working as College Lecturer and she misbehaves with him in public places and in front of family and friends, on account of which he faced mental cruelty. Husband further stated that since no child was born out of their wedlock, the wife tried to take the child of her brother in adoption, so that she can claim a right over the ancestral property of the husband. Husband further stated that wife has also lodged a false criminal case under Section 498A IPC ten days after the marriage, on account of which he faced harassment in the society. Husband further stated that there had been no cohabitation between them from last one year and the wife had also denied cohabitation. The wife filed reply to the said application, wherein she denied all the allegations. She further stated that husband has solemnized a second marriage with another lady and out of their said wedlock, one child was also born. The wife further stated that the husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongdoing. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed various issues. 3. The husband appear before the learned Family Court and examined his own evidence as AW-1 as well as AW-2 Satyanarayan, AW-3 Bhimkanwar, AW-4 Manprakash, AW-5 Dhannalal and AW-6 Usha Panwar. The wife examined her evidence as NAW-1 as well as NAW-2 Rukmani Bai, NAW-3 Lalit, NAW-4 Rajkumar and NAW-5 Bhawani Shanker. Wife also submits documentary evidence as Exhibit as A-1 to A-11. Thereafter, learned Family Court after recording the evidence of both the [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (3 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] parties, dismissed the application filed on behalf of the husband. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007, this appeal has been filed on behalf of the husband. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits the learned Family Court has committed error in deciding the issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 with regard to cruelty against the husband. Learned counsel further submits that the wife was in the habit of misbehaving with husband in front of his friends and family. Learned counsel further submits that the wife lodged false criminal case against the husband under Section 498A IPC by which after facing the trial before the learned Trial Court, he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 01.09.1998 from the offences under Section 498A IPC. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the said judgment was also produced before the learned Family Court. Learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court on the issue Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are perverse as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence submitted by the husband. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife oppose the submissions made on behalf of the husband. Learned counsel further submits that husband has solemnized marriage again with another lady namely Usha and the issue No.3 as was framed by the learned Family Court was decided in favour of the wife in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong doing. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (4 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita, reported in (2023) 17 SCC 433, has held:- "17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:- “46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. Cruelty can be even unintentional:- … ....The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill treatment.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows:- [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (5 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] (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. (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 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. (emphasis supplied) 18. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed together as a couple for four years and who have now been living separately for the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (6 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock." 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247 has held:- "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 made the following observation in para 15: (Rani Narsimha Sastry case2, SCC OnLine Hyd) "15.... Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (7 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] 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." 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja reported in (2017) 14 SCC 194 has held:- "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 [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (8 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] 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 IPC." 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 has held:- "22. Judged in the light of the principles discussed above, what we find is that right from the beginning the matrimonial relationship between the parties was not normal; the spouses stayed together at the matrimonial home for a short period of about six months; the respondent had been trying to persuade the appellant and her parents to agree to go for proper medical treatment to improve her health so that the parties may lead a normal sexual life; all such attempts proved futile. The appellant even refused to subject herself to medical test as advised by the doctor. After 21-6-1987 she stayed away from the matrimonial home and the respondent was deprived of her company. In such circumstances, the respondent who was enjoying normal health was likely to feel a sense of anguish and frustration in being deprived of normal cohabitation that every [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (9 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] married person expects to enjoy and also social embarrassment due to the behaviour of the appellant. Further, the conduct of the appellant in approaching the police complaining against her husband and his parents and in not accepting the advice of the superior judicial officer Mr S.K. Jain and taking a false plea in the case that she had conceived but unfortunately there was miscarriage, are bound to cause a sense of mental depression in the respondent. The cumulative effect of all these on the mind of the respondent, in our considered view, amounts to mental cruelty caused due to the stubborn attitude and inexplicably unreasonable conduct of the appellant." 12. We have gone through the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed by the learned Family Court. In our considered view, while deciding the issue No.4 learned Family Court has not considered the judgment dated 01.09.1998 passed by the learned Trial Court, which was available on record, whereby the husband had been acquitted of the charges under Section 498A IPC. 13. In our considered view, lodging of false criminal case against the husband amounts to cruelty. We have considered the statements of other witnesses namely AW-2, AW-3, AW-4, AW-5 and AW-6. These witnesses have specifically stated in their evidence that wife was in the habit of insulting husband in front of his family members and friends. In our considered view, such conduct on the part of the wife amounts to cruelty. 14. In our considered view, learned Family Court has seriously erred in further recording the findings on issue Nos.1 & 2 against the husband ignoring the conduct of respondent-wife as proved by evidence by appellant-husband. [2025:RJ-JP:49006-DB] (10 of 10) [CMA-2781/2007] 15. In view of the above discussion, the findings recorded by the learned Family Court on the issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 are perverse and the same are set aside. Issue Nos.1, 2 & 4 are decided in favour of the husband. 16. Accordingly, the appeal filed on behalf of the husband is allowed. The marriage solemnized between the parties in the month of June, 1985 stands dissolved. Record of the Court below be sent back. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Monika/183