[2025:RJ-JP:40589-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1096/2021 Smt. Mamta Kanwar W/o Shri Kuldeep Singh, D/o Shri Viswapal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No. 32, Jamuna Dairy Sodala , Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant/Non Applicant Versus Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Shri Gopal Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o 836, Near By Govind Dev Temple, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent/Applicant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Harshit Kakani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 07/10/2025 1. Heard on application No.01/2021 under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 filed on behalf of the wife. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife wants to withdraw this application with liberty to file the same before the learned Family Court. 3. In that view of the matter, this application stands dismissed with liberty, as prayed for. 4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as “wife”) against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Family Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (hereinafter to be referred as “the learned Family Court”), whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application [2025:RJ-JP:40589-DB] (2 of 6) [CMA-1096/2021] under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1955”) filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as “husband”). 5. Brief facts of the case are that the husband filed a divorce application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Family Court stating therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.05.2009, at Jaipur and out of their said wedlock, one daughter was born. It was further stated that the wife told the husband at initial stage of the marriage that she was not interested to solemnize the marriage with him, however, her parents forcefully solemnized this marriage. It was further stated that the behaviour of the wife was very cruel with him and his family members and the wife always pressurized him for living separately from his parents and threatened him for involving in false criminal case and also tried to commit suicide. It was further stated that the husband has also taken a separate house on rent, however, the behaviour of the wife remained the same and she left her matrimonial home. 6. The wife filed reply to the said application and denied the allegations levelled against her. She further stated that the husband and his family members demanded the dowry and he misbehaved with her and her family members and lastly prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:- “1& vk;k vizkfFkZ;k }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk ;kfpdk esa of.kZr izdkj ls Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k\ 2& vk;k vizkfFkZ;k }kjk izkFkhZ dk ebZ] 2011 ls vfHkR;kx fd;k gqvk gS\ 3& vuqrks"kA“ [2025:RJ-JP:40589-DB] (3 of 6) [CMA-1096/2021] 8. The husband in support of his case submitted his own evidence as AW-1 and also submitted the evidence of AW-2 Sameer and also submitted the documentary evidence as Ex-A1 & A2. On the other hand, the wife also submitted her own evidence as NAW-1. 9. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties allowed the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2021. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, the wife has filed the present appeal before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the wife submits that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on all the issues are perverse and the same deserve to be set aside. He further submits that the husband and his family members demanded dowry, on account of which, she has lodged a criminal case against the husband. He further submits that the husband does not want to live with the wife and thrown out her from her matrimonial home and lastly, prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the husband opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the wife and submits that the wife has lodged a false criminal case against the husband, in which, the learned Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No-12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) vide its order dated 07.08.2019 acquitted the husband. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments and in a [2025:RJ-JP:40589-DB] (4 of 6) [CMA-1096/2021] recent judgment delivered in the matter of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported in 2023 17 SCC 433, wherein in paras No.27, wherein it was held as under:- “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 between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narasimha Sastry Vs. Suneela Rani reported in 2020 (18) SCC 247 where para No.13, it was held 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? made the following observation in para 15: (Rani Narsimha Sastry case, 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:40589-DB] (5 of 6) [CMA-1096/2021] 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 crueltv. 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.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sivasankaran Vs. Santhimeenal reported in 2022 (15) SCC 742, wherein para No.25, it was held as under:- “In view of the legal position which we have referred to aforesaid, these continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition, as was found by the trial court. This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage. In fact, there was no initial integration itself which would allow disintegration afterwards. The fact that there have been continued allegations and litigative proceedings and that can amount to cruelty is an aspect taken note of by this Court. The marriage having not taken off from its inception and 5 years having been spent in the trial court, it is difficult to accept that the marriage soon after the decree of divorce, within 6 days, albeit 6 years after the initial inception of marriage, amounts to conduct which can be held against the appellant.” 16. We have gone through the record and also the evidence submitted by both the parties before it. In the present case, the wife lodged a false criminal case with regard to demand of dowry for the offences under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC against the husband, in which, after facing trial, the husband was acquitted by [2025:RJ-JP:40589-DB] (6 of 6) [CMA-1096/2021] the learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 07.08.2019. In our considered view, lodging of a false criminal case against the husband by the wife amounts to cruelty with the husband. 17. We have also considered the fact that the wife has pressurized the husband to live separately from his parents. In our considered view, asking the husband by the wife to live separately from his parents amounts to cruelty with the husband. 18. We have also considered the fact that the wife has deserted the husband for more than two years prior to filing of the divorce petition without any justifiable reason. In our considered view, the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality in deciding the issue of desertion against the wife. 19. We have also considered the fact that admittedly both the husband and wife are living separately for more than 14 years and there is no chance of re-union at this point of time. In our considered view, asking both of them to live together at this point of time amounts to cruelty with both of them, as there is no chance of their re-union. 20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed on behalf of the wife deserves to be dismissed. 21. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed. 22. Record of the learned Court below be sent back. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudha/41