[2026:RJ-JP:12532-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1223/2016 Smt. Sujata Jangid aged 32 years, D/o Pannalal, W/o Ravindra Kumar Jangid, Resident of Village Dev, Police Station Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu, posted as Teacher at Govt. Primary School, Dharampur, Tehsil Khandela, Dist. Sikar, at present Resident of C/o Near Om Prakash Sirohiwala Agarwal Dharam Shala, Pratap Road, Tehsil Khandela, Dist. Sikar ----Appellant-Non-Applicant-Wife Versus Ravindra Kumar Jangid S/o Shiv Prasad Jangid, aged 33 years, Resident of Barwa Police Station Udaipurwati, Dist. Jhunjhunu, at present posted in Indian Navy as CPO No.124652-A, Commanding Officer, INS India, Newal Headquarters, New Delhi ----Respondent-Applicant-Husband For Appellant : Mr. Tanmay Dhand with Mr. Sumit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Judgment 25/03/2026 1. Instant appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) read with Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by appellant-wife against an ex-parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 26.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar, on a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing No.16/2015 by respondent-husband. 2. It appears that on filing a divorce petition under Section 13 of Act of 1955 by respondent, his marriage with appellant [2026:RJ-JP:12532-DB] (2 of 6) [CMA-1223/2016] allegedly solemnized on 24.05.2002 as per hindu rites and ceremonies, was dissolved and an ex-parte decree of divorce was been passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar vide judgment dated 26.09.2015 whereagainst appellant- wife has preferred this appeal. 3. It appears that respondent-husband is serving in Indian Navy and after marriage, his wife got appointment on the post of Government Teacher in Grade-III. Since husband was staying away from wife on account of his service in Indian Navy, when he turned up at his matrimonial home in the year 2013, he noticed a change in behaviour of his wife towards him; she did not allow him to maintain marital relations nor did she extend any fidelity towards him. According to husband, in his presence, his wife broke her bangles, wiped of vermilion (‘Sindoor’) from her forehead and removed other symbols of marriage ‘Bindi’. On account of all such abnormal misdeeds by wife, on an enquiry, he came to know that his wife had developed some extramarital relationship with one person working in the same government school where she was serving. Hence, husband filed a divorce petition on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. 4. It appears that summons of divorce petition were duly served upon wife but she chose not to appear and contest the divorce petition. Ex-parte proceedings were drawn against her and evidence of husband was recorded. Thereafter at that stage, divorce petition was transferred from Family Court, Sikar to Additional District Judge, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar due to some administrative reasons and the Transferee Court proceeded on the divorce petition at the same stage, and passed an ex-parte decree [2026:RJ-JP:12532-DB] (3 of 6) [CMA-1223/2016] of divorce vide judgment dated 26.09.2015, whereagainst, wife has preferred this appeal. 5. In this appeal, it is not the case of wife that she was not served with summons of divorce petition from the Family Court, Sikar. Her only plea is that after transfer of divorce petition, fresh summons were not issued to her. In respect of granting a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, she has questioned the evidence of one witness named Ms. Sushila Devi and has filed an affidavit of Ms. Sushila Devi that she never deposed any affidavit in favour of respondent-husband, to support the allegation of adultery. 6. From the record it appears that an appeal was filed by appellant with a delay of 47 days. This Court condoned the delay vide order dated 15.03.2016 and issued notices to respondent. From the record it is apparent that proper notices of respondent were not filed and from the side of appellant, no concrete and sincere steps have been taken to serve the notice upon respondent. 7. This appeal is pending for about more than 10 years, awaiting service of notices upon respondent. 7.1. Considering the factual matrix obtaining in the present case and ground on which the decree of divorce has been passed against appellant, with the consent of learned counsel for appellant, we have heard the appeal on merits. 8. Adverting to the record, it is apparent that wife, despite of service of summons of divorce petition, did not appear before the Family Court, Sikar and set ex-parte. Husband has adduced evidence in ex-parte and thereafter, for administrative reasons, [2026:RJ-JP:12532-DB] (4 of 6) [CMA-1223/2016] the divorce petition was transferred from Family Court, Sikar to Court of Additional District Judge, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar. In view of such factual aspect, the plea raised by appellant is that fresh notice by Transferee Court to her were not issued, is preposterous and untenable. It is not the case of wife that she could not put appearance before the Transferee Court, for want of knowledge of transfer of the divorce petition rather it is a case that wife herself chose not to appear and contest the divorce petition before Family Court, Sikar itself. 9. In respect of challenge to the ground of adultery, based on filing of affidavit of one Ms. Sushila Devi, we have observed that in the impugned judgment and decree of divorce, the trial Court has relied upon the evidence of husband Ravindra Jangid as AW-1 and one witness Saraswati as AW-2. Trial Court has not placed reliance upon any affidavit or evidence of Ms. Sushila Devi. Therefore, another plea taken by appellant to assail the impugned judgment, does not find any support from the record. 10. Coming on merits of the impugned judgment and decree of divorce dated 26.09.2015, we find that indeed the trial Court has dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty and not on the ground of adultery. The allegation of husband levelled against wife that she has developed some extramarital relationship with another person, behind his back, were construed as cruelty towards husband and considering the seriousness of such allegation, same was considered as sufficient to cause mental cruelty towards husband. That apart, as has already been noticed hereinabove that other misdeeds, done by wife like humiliating husband by removing all the signs of a married woman too, [2026:RJ-JP:12532-DB] (5 of 6) [CMA-1223/2016] constitute a ground of cruelty in favour of husband, sufficient to dissolve the marriage. 10.1. Among Hindus, marriage is a sacrament and is considered as a sacred union, the foundation of which is mutual trust and respect between spouse towards each other. It is true that a disagreement or minor quarrel which falls within ordinary wear and tear in every married life, are not suffice to break this sacred union, but if the conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards another is so much cruelsome and disrespectfully as much as disgusting, same gives rise to a ground of cruelty to the victim spouse, if he does not condone such acts/misdeeds of cruelty. 11. In the light of allegations levelled by husband against wife, which have not been countered/refuted by wife, we find that the trial Court has not erred in drawing an inference that it is not possible for husband to continue or retain his marital relationship with wife, who has neither extended any respect to him nor shown any fidelity rather leading a perfidious nature of life. The acts/conducts/misdeed of wife, as alleged by husband, do constitute a ground of cruelty to dissolve the marriage and therefore, the trial Court has not erred in dissolving the marriage. 12. With the aforesaid clarification, findings and observations, we hereby affirm the impugned judgment and decree of divorce dated 26.09.2015, passed on ground of cruelty suffered by husband from his wife and do not want to interfere in the impugned decree of divorce accordingly. 13. As a result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:12532-DB] (6 of 6) [CMA-1223/2016] 14. All other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J AARZOO ARORA /07