[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sau. Trupti W/O Jayant Admane vs Shri Jayant S/O Suresh Admane on 7 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:219
31.SA.253.2025 Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO.253 OF 2025
APPELLANT :- Sau. Trupti W/o Jayant Admane,
(Ori. Respondent)
ON R.A. Aged about 25 years, Occupation -
Household, R/o Dwarkanagari, Warora, Tah.
Warora, District - Chandrapur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENT :- Shri Jayant S/o Suresh Admane,
(Ori. Petitioner)
ON R.A. Aged about 37 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o Naginabad, Swawlambi Nagar,
Chandrapur, Tah. and District - Chandrapur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B.B. Pantawane, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R.M. Tahaliyani, Advocate for Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 07/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal takes exception to the concurrent
decrees of divorce passed by the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge Senior
Division, Chandrapur, in Hindu Marriage Petition No.316 of 2021
which was confirmed vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2024,
passed by the learned District Judge-1, Chandrapur, in Regular Civil
Appeal No.10 of 2024.
31.SA.253.2025 Judgment.odt
2. The respondent-husband had filed the aforesaid Hindu
Marriage Petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion by the
wife without justifiable reason for a period of two years and also on
the ground of cruelty, alleging that the appellant-wife had married
with one Mr. A. The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 05.07.2019. The appellant-wife is staying at her parental house
shortly after the marriage from 15.08.2019. The divorce petition
was filed by the respondent-husband on 27.09.2021. The allegation
with respect to cruelty is that, the appellant-wife was in relation with
one Mr. A before the marriage and subsequently married him on
02.07.2025. The parties had also filed a petition for divorce and
mutual consent initially however before the said proceeding was
decided, the appellant-wife withdrew her consent. The respondent-
husband has examined himself and other four witnesses in support
of his case. He placed on record photographs regarding marriage of
the appellant-wife with Mr. A. The photographs are marked at
Exhs.84 to 97. The appellant-wife has raised a contention that the
photographs were morphed and had also filed Criminal Complaint
Case No.366 of 2021 against the said Mr. A.
3. An inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, was ordered in the criminal case in which it was
31.SA.253.2025 Judgment.odt
found that the photographs of appellant's marriage with Mr. A were
not morphed and were, in fact, genuine. This report under Section
202 is based on expert opinion. The said report was also filed before
the learned trial Court. In the light of such evidence, the learned
trial Court has accepted the contention with respect to cruelty.
4. As regards desertion, the respondent-husband has
deposed that the appellant-wife is residing at her parental house
since 15.08.2019 without any justifiable reason. The appellant-wife
has not conducted cross-examination of the husband-respondent.
The evidence has gone unchallenged. The appellant-wife did not
lead evidence. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court has
granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion
without justifiable reason.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree of divorce, the
present appellant preferred appeal being Regular Civil Appeal
No.10 of 2024, which is also dismissed on re-appreciation of
evidence by the learned First Appellate Court. The present second
appeal is filed challenging the said concurrent decrees.
6. Mr. Pantawane, learned Advocate for the appellant,
contends that the photographs, on the basis of which the conclusion
with respect to the second marriage is drawn by the learned Courts,
31.SA.253.2025 Judgment.odt
are secondary evidence which was not admissible in evidence for
want of permission to lead secondary evidence. He has placed
reliance on the judgments in the case of State of Gujrat ..vs..
Bhupendra1 and in the case of Jai Prakash Singh ..vs.. State of
Bihar2, in support of his contention.
7. Perusal of the record indicates that the photographs of
the marriage were taken from the mobile phone of the respondent-
husband and were printed in a laboratory. The owner of the said
laboratory was examined as a witness. A certificate under Section
65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, is also filed on record. The said
photographs are thus legally admissible.
8. Apart from this, the objection is not to the admissibility
of the photographs but to the mode of proof of the said
photographs. It is not in dispute that no objection was raised with
respect to the mode of proof of the said documents while the
documents were marked as exhibits by the learned Court. It is well
settled that an objection to the mode of evidence cannot be raised if
such objection is not raised before the learned trial Court while the
document is marked as an exhibit. Reliance in support of this legal
proposition, can be placed on the full bench decision of this Court
1 1991 CRI.L.J. 978
2 2006 CRI.L.J. 4245
31.SA.253.2025 Judgment.odt
in the case of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia ..vs.. Subodh Mody3. The
allegations of cruelty are thus duly proved.
9. As regards desertion, the testimony of respondent-
husband that the appellant-wife has deserted his company from
15.08.2019 without any justification has gone unchallenged. The
petition is filed on 27.09.2021 i.e. after completion of two years
from the date of desertion.
10. The evidence of respondent-husband and his witnesses
has gone unchallenged. Adverse inference also needs to be drawn
against the appellant-wife for not entering the witness box.
11. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration. Second Appeal is therefore dismissed with
no order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
3 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886
