HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2491/2012 Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o Ward No.1, Meeron Ka Mohalla, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus Smt. Babli Yadav W/o Shri Praveen Kumar, aged about 30 years, R/o Ward No.1, Meeron Ka Mohalla, Behror, District Alwar – D/o Shri Amar Singh Aheer, R/o Village Gandala, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (At present R/o Ward No.1, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Ram Nagar Colony, Tasing Road, Behror, District Alwar) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 15/12/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband (hereinafter referred as ‘husband’ for short) under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Behror, in Divorce Petition No.310/2007 titled as “Praveen Kumar Vs. Smt. Babli Yadav”, whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below committed a serious mistake while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012 as it failed to consider the conduct of the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as ‘wife’ for short). 3. Learned counsel further submits that the marriage between the parties herein was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 15.05.1995 and on account of serious marital discord, they have been living separately since 2005. He further submits that out of the said wedlock, two children were born. He further submits that the husband tried all possible efforts to change the behaviour of the wife but she did not change. She used to quarrel over petty issues and remained non-cooperative with the family members of the appellant. She also used to leave the matrimonial house without the consent of the family member of the husband. He further submits that the wife was in an illicit relationship with one Gopal, who is the brother-in-law(Nandoi) of the appellant’s sister and she used to talk for hours with him on cellphone. She also took away both the children in the year 2005 and since then, she has been living at her parental house in village Gandala.66 4. Learned counsel submits that the appellant-husband filed the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 in September, 2007 on the ground of cruelty, desertion and illicit relationship of the wife, however, the parties entered into a compromise before the Trial Court in the month of March, 2008 and thereafter, she returned to her matrimonial house. 5. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of the compromise, the husband deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) each in fixed deposit in the names of the two children and on that basis, the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife were withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute aforesaid dates back to the year 2008 and the conduct of the respondent did not change as she filed a number of false and frivolous criminal cases against him. It is also submitted that the wife lodged an FIR bearing No.448/2011 for the offence under Section 341 and 323 IPC at the Police Station, Behror. 7. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Court below framed the issue as to whether the conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty on account of which the husband is entitled for decree of divorce from the Court. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Court below while deciding the issue No.1, did not consider the complete conduct of the wife and also her act of lodging false and frivolous criminal cases against the husband. 8. Despite the specific pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Court below dismissed the divorce petition filed by the husband herein under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012. He therefore prayed that due to long separation, the appeal be allowed. 9. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent wife, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the husband and submitted that it was the husband who was at fault throughout the matrimonial life and it is he, who had thrown the wife and two children out of his house in the year 2005 and again in 2008 and since then, she has been living alongwith the two children at her maternal house with her parents. Learned counsel further submits that the wife denied the allegations of cruelty, desertion and illicit relationship, however, due to the conduct of the husband, she had no option but to file the criminal cases, specifically pointing out his conduct. It was also submitted that husband has neglected the wife and the two children. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below committed no mistake while dismissing the divorce petition by the judgment dated 30.05.2012, as the husband failed to prove the allegations of cruelty, desertion and illicit relationship. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations of cruelty were found to be vague and unsupported by reliable evidence and, therefore, the judgment as passed by the learned Trial Court is a reasoned one, on account of which no interference is required in the present appeal also. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. This Court noted that the marriage of the parties was solemnized in the year 1995 and, on account of marital discord, they last resided together up to the year 2005. However, in the divorce petition as filed in the year 2007, the wife stayed for some time in the matrimonial house, however, she was again thrown out of the matrimonial house along with the two children and since the year 2008, both the children have been residing with the wife i.e. their mother. 14. This court also noted that though the allegation of illicit relationship had been leveled, the same were not proved before the learned Court below and further, no effort was made by the husband to seek custody of the two children which shows his intentional neglect of his matrimonial and family obligations. This Court also noted that while deciding the issue of cruelty and the cruel behaviour of the respondent wife, the learned Court below considered the evidence of witnesses as produced by both the parties, namely, AW2 Muniya @ Brajesh and AW3 Naveen from the husband’s side and NAW1 the respondent wife and NAW2 Amar Singh, NAW3 and Satyendra on behalf of respondent- wife. 15. This Court has carefully considered the theories set up by the appellant husband. However, after examining the entire evidence, this Court fails to find any concrete evidence which may show that the act of the respondent wife was cruel in nature and, therefore, the issue No.1 regarding cruelty could not be proved by the husband on the basis of his evidence and the statement of the material witnesses as produced by him. Therefore, the learned Court below committed no mistake while passing the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012. 16. Though, the husband is living separately from the wife, initially since the year 2005 and thereafter from March, 2008 onwards, however no effort was made by him for restitution of conjugal rights or for seeking custody of the two minor children born out of the wedlock. This conduct of the husband shows that he himself has caused cruelty by not performing the matrimonial obligations and by not taking care of his two children born from the wedlock. While considering the arguments as raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds no strength in the arguments by which the appellant could prove that the wife had treated him with cruelty. 17. Upon an overall appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and conduct of the parties, this Court finds that the appellant-husband has failed to discharge the burden casted upon him to establish cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The allegations levelled against the respondent-wife are general in nature and are not supported by cogent, convincing or reliable evidence. Mere matrimonial discord, normal wear and tear of marital life, or filing of criminal proceedings, which have not been shown to be false or malicious, cannot by themselves constitute cruelty so as to dissolve the marital tie. On the contrary, the material on record reflects that the appellant did not make any sincere effort towards restitution of conjugal rights or towards maintaining and seeking custody of the minor children, which further weakens his claim. 18. In the view of above discussion, this court is of opinion that the husband has failed to prove any mental cruelty inflicted upon him by respondent-wife, therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Dushyant/39