Hathras (U.P.) v. Girija Shankar Sharma S/o Narendra Kumar Shastri, Aged About

: Mr. Mohammad Shahid Hassan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 07/07/2025 Order

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as ‘wife’) against the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court No. 1 Jaipur in Case No. 3207/2014 (1032/2014) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Family Court’) whereby the application filed on behalf of the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1955’) was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.06.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs. The wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Act [2025:RJ-JP:24910-DB] (2 of 7) [CMA-1248/2021] of 1955 against the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘husband’) in the year 2014 stating therein that the husband was in the habit of beating the wife; and the husband and his family members were demanding the dowry from her. It was further stated in the application that the husband is not competent to make physical relations with the wife and he was in the habit of levelling false allegations against the wife of not having competence for giving birth to a child. It was further stated that the husband was also in the habit of consuming the liquor. It was further stated in the application that after death of father of the wife in the year 2013, the husband asked the wife to take share from her parental property and on 08.04.2014 she was beaten by the husband and was thrown out from her matrimonial home on account of which she has also lodged a case under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC against the husband in which charge-sheet has been filed against the husband by the Police after investigation. Lastly, prayed for granting the decree of divorce.

3. The husband filed reply to the said application and denied the allegations levelled by the wife. It was further stated that the wife has lodged false criminal case against him and lastly, prayed for dismissal of the application seeking decree of divorce.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the following issues:- Þ1& vk;k vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk ;kfpdk esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k\ 2& vk;k vizkFkhZ uiaqld gS\ 3& vuqrks"k\Þ [2025:RJ-JP:24910-DB] (3 of 7) [CMA-1248/2021]

5. The wife in support of her case submitted her own evidence as PW-1 and the husband submitted his own evidence as DW-1, thereafter, the learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the application filed on behalf of the wife vide its judgment and decree dated 06.09.2019. Hence, this appeal has been filed on behalf of the wife.

6. Learned counsel for the wife submits that finding recorded by the learned Family Court on Issue No. 1 is perverse and the husband was in the habit of taking liquor and after taking the same many a times, he has beaten the wife. Counsel further submits that she tolerated the behaviour of the husband and when her father died, she was thrown out from her matrimonial home on account of which a criminal case was also lodged by her against the husband and prayed for quashing of the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2019 and allowing the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the wife has filed divorce application on the false and fabricated grounds. Counsel further submits that the husband is competent to make the physical relations with the wife and he has never demanded the dowry from the wife and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in 2007(4) SCC 511 has held as under:- “101 (xiv.) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that [2025:RJ-JP:24910-DB] (4 of 7) [CMA-1248/2021] the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”

10. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’bleSupreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments and in a recent judgment delivered in the matter of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita (Civil Appeal No.2012/2013) decided on

26.01.2023, wherein in Paras No.17 and 18, it has been has held as under:- “17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:- “ 46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. Whether Cruelty can be even unintentional:- …The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that [2025:RJ-JP:24910-DB] (5 of 7) [CMA-1248/2021] there has been no deliberate or wilful ill- treatment.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. (emphasis supplied)

11. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Rekha Sehrawat Vs. Amarjit Singh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 5303 has held as under:- “It is also pertinent to refer to another set of medical documents of 24.10.2014 and of subsequent dates, of DDU Hospital. In the absence of any rebuttal by the respondent it has to be held that her testimony of being subjected to physical assault stands corroborated by the medical documents. Merely because the parties got married and the respondent was her husband, no law gave him the right to subject his wife to beatings and torture. Such conduct of the respondent necessarily qualifies as physical cruelty entitling the appellant [2025:RJ-JP:24910-DB] (6 of 7) [CMA-1248/2021] to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Marriage Act, 1955.” Hindu

12. We have gone through the record as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below as well as the evidence recorded by the learned Family Court.

13. The wife in her statement recorded before the learned Family Court has stated that the husband was incompetent to make physical relations with her. She has further stated that the husband was in the habit of taking liquor and threatened the wife for killing her on account of which she has also lodged a criminal case against the husband.

14. We have also noted that when the husband demanded the dowry, wife has lodged a criminal case against the husband under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC in which after investigation Police has submitted the charge-sheet.

15. We have also gone through the statements and evidence of the husband who in his cross-examination, admitted the fact that he many a times in the parties has taken the liquor and no denial has been made by the husband with regard to filing of criminal case by the wife against him with regard to demand of dowry in which he was charge-sheeted by the Police.

16. We have also considered the fact that the husband and wife are living separately for more than ten years and asking both of them at this point of time to live together amounts to cruelty to both of them.

17. We have considered the fact that there is no chance of their re-union. In our considered finding recorded by the learned Family Court on Issue No. 1 is perverse and same is accordingly set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:24910-DB] (7 of 7) [CMA-1248/2021]

18. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the wife is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court No. 1 Jaipur in Case No. 3207/2014 (1032/2014) is set aside and the marriage solemnized between the parties dated 26.06.2002 stands dissolved.

19. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.

20. Record of the Court below be sent back. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DIVYA /106