Manihara Talab, Baran, Tehsil- Baran, District- Baran, (Rajasthan) v. Smt. Gulab Bai W/o Kanhaiya Lal, age about

: Mr. S.R.Saini For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 30/06/2025 Order

1. By way of filing the instant misc. appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant-husband has assailed legality and validity of judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Baran whereby application under Section 13 filed by the appellant-husband has been rejected.

2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant appeal are that the appellant-husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the Court below contending therein that marriage of appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized in the year 1969. However, since the date of marriage, the appellant-husband found that his wife (2 of 5) [CMA-902/2012] was of pugnacious nature and she used to remain irritated all the time. For no good reasons, she humiliated the appellant-husband time and again. He submitted that as many as five children were born out of the wedlock of appellant-husband and respondent- wife, however in the year 2004, he was thrown out of his matrimonial home by the respondent-wife and their children by using force and assault. It has also been stated in the application that the appellant-husband was apprehending threat of life from respondent-wife and children therefore, he was entitled for decree of divorce.

3. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent-wife mentioning therein that the marriage had taken place 40 years back. Being the responsible wife, she has also fulfilled all her marital obligations, however, despite there being no provocation on her part the appellant-husband used to beat her and humiliate her for no plausible causes. She has never committed any cruelty and the reality is that the appellant-husband himself, in quite malicious manner has sold the ancestral property and the sale proceed are being mis-utilized by him. The respondent-wife being an old lady had for no means of earning. At that stage of life, she was and has been ready to lead marital life with the appellant- husband. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the application filed by the appellant-husband.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties as many as three issues were framed by the Court below. The appellant-husband got himself examined as sole witness however, no documentary proof whatsoever was produced. No evidence was laid on behalf of respondent-wife. (3 of 5) [CMA-902/2012]

5. After examining the pleadings of the parties, facts of the case and material on record, learned Court below dismissed the application under Section 13 filed by the appellant-husband vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012 is based upon misappreciation of the facts and misconstruction of evidence produced by the appellant. The Court below has passed the judgment dated 12.01.2012 only on the basis of assumption and without considering the legal evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that issue No.1 has been decided by the Court below in quite cursory and mechanical manner without analysing the matter on record. Hence, the findings arrived at by the Court below are perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that appellant-husband has placed sufficient material on record to prove that he had been subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of his matrimonial home hence, under these circumstances, he was entitled for decree of divorce. Learned Court below has erroneously rejected his application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the appellant-husband. Thus, he prayed for quashing the judgment dated 12.01.2012 and for granting decree of divorce in his favour.

9. We have considered the record and carefully heard arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. (4 of 5) [CMA-902/2012]

10. It would reveal from the record that in order to prove cruelty, no other witness except the appellant-husband himself has been produced before the Court below. Even the bare scanning of the statements given by the appellant would not reveal any sustain and consistent cruel behaviour of the respondent-wife against the husband.

11. We find that application under Section 13 was filed by the appellant-husband after 40 years of marriage. Five children were born out of wedlock of appellant-husband and respondent-wife, out of which four children have performed marriages and only the youngest daughter was unmarried. Neither in the pleadings nor during statements, the appellant has specified any continuous objectionable behaviour on behalf of respondent-wife, which could be considered as cruelty to such an extent, which would make it impossible for the husband to continue marital trial with respondent-wife.

12. In 40 years of marriage, some petty wear and tear are bound to take place, however such normal incidents cannot be termed as cruelty so as to make out a ground for divorce.

13. It is relevant to refer that in the case of A. Jaya Chandra Vs. Aneel Kaur reported in 2005 (2) SCC 22, Hon’ble Supreme Court as held as under: “12.To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the (5 of 5) [CMA-902/2012] matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions.“

14. Bare perusal of the statements of the appellant-husband would also reveal that he has not cited any continuous, consistent and regular incidents, so as to infer cruelty against him leaving no other alternative except praying for divorce. It is also a settled proposition of law that mere statement of the applicant filing application for seeking divorce are not sufficient to prove cruelty. Cruelty is a continuous and consistent pattern of behaviour, which can be proved by leading evidence of other concerned persons such as relatives, immediate neighbours as well as friends yet in the instant case, no such witness was produced by the appellant- husband. Hence, it can be sufficiently held that the appellant- husband has utterly failed to place any legitimate piece of evidence on record so as to prove cruelty in the instant case.

15. We have also gone through the judgment delivered by learned Court below and found that the judgment is based upon due analysis of the facts and evidence on record, and is also supported by sound findings and therefore, requires no interference by this Court in the instant appeal.

16. Consequently, this appeal fails on account of being devoid of any substance and merit and is hereby dismissed.

17. Record of the Court below be sent back. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J NEERU/13