[2026:RJ-JP:1969-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 711/2009 Meera D/o Late Sriram W/o Rajveer, R/o Haweli Ka Nagla, P.S. Kolari, Dholpur Raj. ----Appellant Versus Rajveer S/o Late Raysal, R/o Sisen Ka Pura, Majra Sakhwara, Tehsil Saipau, Distt. Dholpur Raj. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ambrish Vashishtha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 16/01/2026 1. With consent of learned counsel for both the parties and having assistance from the record available with them, we have heard the appeal finally on merits. 2. This is an appeal, by and on behalf of appellant-wife, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.75/2007 by the District Judge, Dholpur, granting a decree of divorce in favour of respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty. 3. Factual matrix of the case, in nutshell, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.04.2000 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Later on, due to matrimonial discord, one FIR on 01.06.2005 was lodged by wife levelling an allegation that her husband and in-laws tried to burn her for demand of dowry. On such allegation, a criminal case for offences [2026:RJ-JP:1969-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-711/2009] under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC was registered; husband and his family members were arrested; later on, after trial they have been acquitted from charges of such offences vide judgment dated 09.05.2006. 4. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed on 14.06.2007 by the husband stating inter alia that his wife has committed cruelty with him and falsely implicated him in the criminal case. He also stated that after his acquittal in the criminal case, his wife threatened him to commit suicide and to implicate again him in a false criminal case. He prayed for dissolution of his marriage and a decree of divorce. 5. On filing of divorce petition, after service of notice, wife submitted her reply and denied the allegations of cruelty. 6. The Trial Court framed issues and permitted the parties to adduce their evidence. 7. In the evidence, wife appeared as NAW-1 and admitted that she deposed her statements in the criminal case that indeed her husband and in-laws never tried to burn her but at the time of applying ‘Mehndi’ to her hand, her clothes caught fire by an earth lamp laying beside. Her statement recorded in the criminal case were placed on record in the present proceedings of divorce petition as Exhibit A-5 which were accepted by wife to be true and made by her in criminal case. 8. Respondent-husband, in his evidence has clearly deposed that he was falsely implicated for charges of offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and after his acquittal from such charges, his wife threatened him to commit suicide and to implicate him again in a false criminal case. Other evidence of her [2026:RJ-JP:1969-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-711/2009] quarrelsome and non-cooperative behaviour was also led, due to which it was not possible for husband to lead a happy and peaceful life with his fie. 9. After appreciation of evidence of parties, the trial Court concluded that wife has committed cruelty towards her husband; has implicated husband in a false case for offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC as much as threatened her husband to commit suicide and to implicate him in a criminal case, hence cumulative conclusion of all such acts of wife is mental and physical cruelty towards husband, sufficient to issue a decree of divorce in favour of husband and finally impugned decree was passed. 10. We find that the fact finding and conclusion recorded by the Trial Court, based on appreciation of the respective evidence of parties is within parameters of law and do not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness or perversity. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently in the case of Narsimha Sastry Vs. Suneela Rani reported in 2020(18) SCC 247 has held and observed 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 Section498-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.” [2026:RJ-JP:1969-DB] (4 of 4) [CMA-711/2009] 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 atrial 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. The net out-come of aforesaid discussion is that we are not inclined to upset the findings and decree of divorce, hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits and substance. 13. Any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/2