Mr. Satish Pandey, Adv v. RAVIKANT RAVI

Judgment

1. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellant-Wife, assails the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the learned Family Court in HMA No. 1684/2018 whereby the petition filed by the Respondent-Husband under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as „HMA‟], seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, has been allowed and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether, once the Family Court, on proper appreciation of evidence, Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 1 of 17 has found that the marriage remained unconsummated from inception and that the Appellant‟s conduct amounted to mental cruelty, would it be appropriate to interfere in Appeal? FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal, as pleaded, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.05.2017 in District Rohtas, Bihar as per Hindu customs and ceremonies. It is not in dispute that soon after the marriage, the parties were able to cohabit only for a short period and that the parties have been residing separately since June 2017.

4. It was the case of the Respondent that the marriage remained unconsummated from inception and the Appellant allegedly displayed reluctance towards physical intimacy, household responsibilities and general matrimonial obligations. He asserted that the Appellant repeatedly declined to cohabit, avoided physical relations citing illness or depression, and allegedly threatened him with false criminal cases, including threats of implicating him in rape or abetment to suicide if he insisted on cohabitation. The Respondent further alleged that the Appellant insulted him and his parents, made monetary demands and on 26.06.2017 left the matrimonial home stating that she was going to meet her father but thereafter never returned despite repeated requests.

5. The Respondent claimed that he made several attempts to persuade the Appellant to return to the matrimonial home, but the Appellant refused and warned him that any insistence would result in false complaints against him and his family members. A notice dated Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 2 of 17

22.04.2018 was the Respondent seeking annulment/divorce, to which, according to him, no reply was given. Thereafter, the Respondent instituted HMA No. 1684/2018 seeking divorce on 17.07.2018 before the Family Court.

6. The Appellant, in her written statement before the Family Court, denied all the allegations and contended that she was always ready and willing to reside with the Respondent and perform her matrimonial duties. She pleaded that it was the Respondent and his family who treated her with neglect and indifference, failed to provide emotional support and created an atmosphere in which she felt unsafe and humiliated. She further asserted that the Respondent and his family members subjected her to demands for dowry and monetary contributions and that her refusal to meet such unlawful demands resulted in misbehaviour and ill-treatment. The Appellant maintained that the allegations of refusal of cohabitation, threats, or non- consummation were fabricated, and that the divorce petition had been instituted by the Respondent to escape his own matrimonial obligations and to conceal his and his family's misconduct.

7. Upon completion of pleadings, the Family Court framed issues, including whether the Appellant committed cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. After considering the oral testimony of both parties, the circumstances surrounding matrimonial discord, and the admitted fact of prolonged separation from June, 2017, the Family Court returned findings holding that the Respondent had succeeded in proving mental cruelty. HMA No. 1684/2018 was accordingly allowed, resulting in the Impugned Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 3 of 17 Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023 dissolving the marriage.

8. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

8.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Family Court erred in placing decisive reliance upon an expression used in the Appellant‟s written statement, namely “almost consummated”, and thereafter proceeded on the basis that the marriage was not consummated. It was pointed out that: i. The phrase was used in a pleading context and, in any event, was not intended as an admission of non-consummation; ii. The Appellant‟s evidence, affidavit and oral testimony, squarely asserts cohabitation and performance of matrimonial obligations; and iii. The Family Court‟s characterization of these words as determinative of the entire controversy is hyper-technical and legally unsustainable.

8.2.

It was submitted that the evidence on record demonstrates that the parties co-habited and that the Appellant discharged her marital, conjugal, emotional and mental obligations. The Appellant averred in her affidavit dated 15.10.2022 that she performed her marital obligations, and in cross-examination she admitted cohabitation for the period she lived at the matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the email and WhatsApp communications relied upon by the Respondent were confined to the initial days of marriage, roughly the first 5-10 days, and, as the Appellant has consistently contended, those Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 4 of 17 early exchanges primarily record a request for time to adjust to married life and an agreed pause. The Family Court‟s contrary finding flows from a selective, piecemeal reading of pleadings and therefore, erred by giving disproportionate weight to isolated excerpts from these communications while ignoring the context in which they were exchanged and other communications and acts showing willingness on the part of the Appellant to reconcile.

8.3. Learned counsel contended the Respondent himself admitted in cross-examination that he did not place on record all WhatsApp chats and that neither transcription of the CD contents nor playing of audio/video material was undertaken during evidence. On these admitted facts, it is submitted, the electronic material accepted by the Family Court is inherently incomplete and unreliable. The Respondent adopted a selective “pick and choose” method to place only those portions of electronic communication favourable to him.

8.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellant and her family repeatedly attempted reconciliation as they visited the Respondent multiple times at his residences in Dhanbad, Jharkhand in February 2018, Noida in March 2018, at the Respondent‟s sister‟s residence in July 2017, and even at DLF Mall, Noida in December 2017,in attempts to resolve matrimonial differences. It was contended that the Respondent actively contributed to the breakdown of marital life and that, in such circumstances, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Reliance is placed upon Section 23(1)(a) of the HMA and the line of authorities emphasising that a petitioner seeking matrimonial relief must come to court with clean hands. Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 5 of 17 Authorities relied upon include Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda1, Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati2, M. Ajith Kumar v. V. K. Jeeja (AIR 2009 Ker 100), Rajneesh v. Savita3, T. Srinivasan v. T. Varalakshmi4and Renu Bala v. Jagdeep Chillar5. It is submitted that the Family Court did not properly apply the principle that the court must ensure the petitioner is not seeking to take advantage of his own wrongdoing before granting a decree.

8.5. It was submitted that the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the burden of proof. The law requires the petitioner to prove acts of cruelty by evidence. In the present case, the Respondent did not lead independent, cogent evidence of acts constituting cruelty; instead, the Family Court accepted conjecture, the Respondent‟s self- serving statements, and partial electronic material. Accordingly, it was urged that such an approach is impermissible and contrary to settled principles of appreciation of evidence.

8.6. Learned counsel also pointed out that the Appellant has initiated independent legal proceedings, including a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [„CPC‟], a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [„DV Act‟], and FIR No. 233/2024 under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 [„IPC‟], in which charge-sheet has been filed. These circumstances, according to the Appellant, negate the allegation that ORDER

24. In view of the aforegoing analysis and findings: i. ii. The Appeal and pending applications are dismissed. Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is hereby affirmed. iii. Learned Family Court is directed to rectify the clerical 8 (2007) 4 SCC 511 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 16 of 17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31 error in the decretal portion (misnaming of parties as “Umesh Batra and Shruti Batra”) and to furnish a corrected decretal order under its seal and signature recording the parties‟ names correctly within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of this judgment; compliance to be placed on record. iv. Decree-sheet to be prepared and an appropriate decretal order to be drawn up by the Family Court in accordance with this judgment. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. HARISHVAIDYANATHANSHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 06, 2025 s.godara/pal MAT.APP.(F.C.) 30/2024 Page 17 of 17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:06.12.2025 11:46:31