[2025:RJ-JP:49216-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 976/2004 Smt Vimla wife of Shri Om Prakash aged 42 years, resident of Ward No.3 Khetari at present 4th Class Servant Sofiya School Gothada, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. ----Appellant Versus Om Prakash son of Shri Bhairu Singh, resident of Ward No.3 Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Lokesh Tiwari and Mr. Yashwardhan Tolani For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 03/12/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant – wife against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2004 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, the application filed on behalf of respondent – husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent – husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955) before the learned trial Court stating therein that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.02.1981 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The respondent- husband stated in the said application that from the beginning, behaviour of the appellant – wife was cruel with the husband. The [2025:RJ-JP:49216-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-976/2004] respondent - husband further stated that the wife was in the habit of making allegations against him, accusing him of having relationship with another woman. The respondent - husband further stated that the wife starting living separately from the husband in another city and never came to reside with the husband to the place where he was working. Lastly, he prayed for allowing the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. The reply to the said application was filed on behalf of appellant - wife before the learned trial Court, wherein, she has denied the allegations leveled against her by the respondent - husband. The wife has further stated in the reply that the husband was having relation with another lady on account of which he has thrown her out from the matrimonial home andprayed for dismissal of the application. Thereafter, the learned Family Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: “1. vk;k vizkfFkZ;k mxz LoHkko dh gksdj [kphZyh LoHkko dh gS tks fcuk otg >xM+k djus dh vkfn gS \ 2- vk;k vizkfFkZ;k us izkFkhZ o izkFkhZ ds ifjokj okyksa ds lkFk dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k \ 3- vk;k vizkfFkZ;k fnukad 27-08-1995 dks izkFkhZ dks fcuk dkj.k ifjR;kx dj mldk ?kj NksM+ dj pyh xbZ \” The husband submitted his evidence before the learned Family Court as AW1 – Om Prakash and AW2 - Nanuram, AW3- Bhairu Singh, AW4 - Banarasi, AW5 - Savitri, AW6 – Sister Aunty, AW7 – Vimla Devi and the wife examined herself as NAW1 – Vimla, NAW – Nirmla Devi, NAW3 – Savitri Yadav, NAW4 - [2025:RJ-JP:49216-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-976/2004] Shambhudayal as well as NAW2, NAW3 & NAW4. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of both the parties, allowed the application filed on behalf of husband under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and granted decree of divorce. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2004, this appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant wife. Learned counsel for the appellant wife submitted that the Family Court has committed serious illegality in deciding the issue of cruelty in favour of husband. He further submits that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court on the issue of cruelty is perverse. Counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent – husband despite service. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - wife and perused the record. We have gone through the judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court as well as the evidence submitted by the parties before it. From perusal of the evidence submitted on behalf of husband, it appears that AW1, AW2 & AW3 all these witnesses have stated that the wife was in the habit of leveling false allegations against the husband with regard to extra-marital affair with another lady namely, Lakshmi. The wife in her own evidence, has also leveled similar allegations against the husband. In our considered view, leveling of such allegation without any justifiable reason and without any proof amounts to cruelty towards the husband. We have also considered the fact that the wife has refused to live with the husband where he was working [2025:RJ-JP:49216-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-976/2004] and started living separately in another city and doing the job of Class IV. In our considered view, denial of co-habitation by the wife is cruelty against the husband. We have also considered the fact that both the husband and wife have been living separately for nearly 30 years and asking both of them to cohabit at this stage would be unreasonable, and could be considered cruelty to both the parties. In view of the above discussion, in our considered view, the findings of the learned Family Court, particularly on the issue of cruelty, are based on sound appreciation evidence and the same does not require any interference. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed on behalf of appellant wife is dismissed. Record of the Court below be sent back. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /127