[2026:RJ-JP:1948-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 918/2004 Smt. Sita, Aged 30 years, W/o Bharat Lal, D/o Laxminarayan, R/o Village Dugari, presently R/o Dadwara, Kota Junction, Kota. ----Appellant Versus Bharat Lal S/o Heeralal, Aged 31 years, R/o Gurunanak colony, Bundi, Distt. Bundi Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Braj Narain Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 16/01/2026 1. With the assistance of counsel for both the parties and record available with them, we have heard the appeal finally on merits. 2. This appeal was filed way-back on 25.05.2004, by and behalf of the appellant-wife impugning the judgment dated 21.04.2004, passed by District Judge, Bundi in Case No.08/1997, allowing the divorce petition filed by respondent-husband and granting a decree of divorce in his favour on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. It appears from the record that during the course of appeal, the parties were allowed to resolve their matrimonial dispute through mediation but the mediation remained unsuccessful. 4. It also appears from the record that the parties are indulged in the laundry business and the husband made an allegation in his divorce petition that the wife teased him in manifold manner as sometimes she stole clothes of the customers and burned them [2026:RJ-JP:1948-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-918/2004] and at other times, she called him a black snake. The allegation of the husband is that behavior and conduct of wife towards him is cruelsome and non-bearable as much as she herself deserted him for more than a period of two years from the date of institution of the said divorce petition on 24.02.1997. 5. It appears that the wife resisted both the grounds of cruelty and desertion by filing reply to the divorce petition. 6. The Trial Court, after framing issues, accorded opportunity to adduce evidence and in pursuance thereof, both the parties adduced their respective evidence(s). 7. The District Judge, Bundi, after appreciation of evidences of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the wife has left the matrimonial company of husband and has started living with one another person, namely Kailash. Learned Trial Court noted the statement of husband that his wife is living with one, Kailash as his wife and has left the husband in ignominy. Such conduct of wife was considered as cruelty. Further the evidence from the side of wife, that her husband turned her out of matrimonial home after giving beating and due to demand of dowry, was not believed. 8. The Trial Court has concluded that the wife has committed mental and physical cruelty with the husband and has deserted him without just and reasonable cause for a period of more than two years. Hence, the decree of divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty as also desertion. 9. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on appreciation of evidence(s) and the same has not been established to be suffering from any vice of perversity or [2026:RJ-JP:1948-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-918/2004] jurisdictional error, warranting interference by the High Court on merits. 10. In addition to above, learned counsel for the respondent- husband states that appellant is staying away from the respondent since about more than 35 years and his statement has not been refuted from the side of the appellant. 11. The facts and circumstances noted hereinabove depict that the marriage between the parties has virtually been rendered as a dead marriage. In totality of facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed any error of fact or law in dissolving such a dead marriage and issuing a decree of divorce in favour of respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [(2023) 17, SCC 433] held and observed in Para Nos. 23 & 27 as under:- “23. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. 27. 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 from 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) (i-a) of the 1955 Act.” [2026:RJ-JP:1948-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-918/2004] 13. The net outcome of above discussion is that the instant appeal lacks merit and substance. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. The impugned judgment and decree of divorce dated 21.04.2004, is hereby affirmed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 16. Record be sent back to the Family Court forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J SAHIL SONI /1