[2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2560/2008 Ashwani Kumar S/o Shri Rambharosi Lal, By Caste Vaishya, R/o Mohalla, Kotpada, Badi, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur Raj. ----Appellant Versus Lalita W/o Shri Ashwani Kumar D/o Shri Omprakash Bhuvni Wale By Caste Vaishya, R/o Bhuvnai Raod, In Front Of Factory, Jagner, District Agar Up ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 15/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as ‘husband’) against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Learned District Judge, Dholpur whereby the application filed on behalf of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter to be referred 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 before the learned trial Court against the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘wife’) stating therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.01.2003 as per hindu rites and customs and out of their said wedlock one daughter was born. The husband further stated in the application that the behaviour of the wife from the [2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] (2 of 7) [CMA-2560/2008] very beginning was cruel and she was having illciit relations with one another boy and he further stated in the application that many a times, he has seen the said boy with his wife, however, when he complained to his wife, she quarrelled with the husband and left her matrimonial home just after five months of their marriage in the month of June, 2003 and lastly prayed for granting the decree of divorce. 3. The wife filed reply to the said application and denied the allegations levelled by the husband. The wife further stated in her reply that the husband demanded the dowry from her on account of which she lodged a criminal case against the husband under Sections 498-A IPC. She further stated that the husband is having illicit relations with his brother’s wife and lastly prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:- Þ1& D;k foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dk fnukad 12-06-2003 ls ifjR;kx fd;k gqvk gS\ 2& D;k foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk fnukad 12-06-2003 ls dksbZ 'kkjhfjd laHkkx ugha dj Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k x;k gS\ 3& vuqrks"k\ß 5. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence produced by both the parties dismissed the application filed on behalf of the husband vide its judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008, the husband has filed this appeal. It is not disputed by the parties that during pendency of the proceedings before this [2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] (3 of 7) [CMA-2560/2008] Court, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 07.09.2019 acquitted the husband from the offence under Section 498A IPC. It is also admitted by the counsel for the parties that being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, the wife filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badi, District Dholpur. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 13.11.2025. Thus as on today, the husband stands acquitted from the offence under Section 498A IPC. 7. Counsel for the husband submitted that the wife was having illicit relations with another boy on account of which she left her matrimonial home just after five months of their marriage. Counsel further submits that the behaviour of the wife from the very beginning was very cruel with the husband and his family members. Counsel further submits that the wife lodged a false criminal case under Section 498A IPC in which after facing the trial, the husband has been acquitted by the competent court of law and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Counsel for the wife opposed opposed the submissions made by counsel for the husband. Counsel further submits that the husband is having illicit relations with his brother’s wife on account of which he has thrown her wife out of their home and also demanded the dowry and therefore the wife was forced to lodge a criminal case against the husband under Section 498A IPC. Counsel further submits that the allegation levelled by the husband against the wife was rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Court and lastly prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] (4 of 7) [CMA-2560/2008] 10. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments and in a recent judgment delivered in the matter of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported in 2023 17 SCC 433, wherein in Paras No.17, it has been has held as under:- “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 wilful ill- treatment.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as [2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] (5 of 7) [CMA-2560/2008] 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) 11. 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] (6 of 7) [CMA-2560/2008] 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 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.” 12. We have gone through the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned trial Court and perused the evidence submitted by the parties before it. According to the evidence submitted by the husband and wife before the learned Family Court, both of them levelled serious allegations against each other. The husband has levelled the allegation against the wife for having illicit relations with another boy whereas the wife has levelled the allegation against the husband of having illicit relations with his brother’s wife. In our considered view, levelling of these types of allegations by the husband and wife against each other amounts to cruelty to both of them. We have also considered the fact that admittedly the wife has lodged a criminal case under Section 498A IPC in which after facing the trial, the husband has been acquitted by the trial Court vide its order dated 07.02.2019. We have also considered the fact that the appeal filed on behalf of the wife against the order of acquittal passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:50436-DB] (7 of 7) [CMA-2560/2008] trial Court was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 13.11.2025. In our considered view, lodging of false criminal case against the husband by the wife amounts to cruelty with the husband. We have also considered the fact that both the husband and wife are living separately for more than 20 years and there is no chance of their reunion and asking both of them to live together at this point of time amount to cruelty to both of them. 13. In view of the above discussion, this appeal filed on behalf of the husband is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned Family Court is set aside. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 20.01.2003 stands dissolved. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly. Record of the court below be sent back. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /54