[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Vimal Maheshkumar Ranglani vs Monikaben Poptani @ Pragya Vimal ... on 5 December, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1902/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1902 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1902 of 2025
================================================================
VIMAL MAHESHKUMAR RANGLANI
Versus
MONIKABEN POPTANI @ PRAGYA VIMAL MAHESHBHAI RANGLANI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMANG S TRIVEDI(10045) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
T K GURNANI(7381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-husband
against judgment and decree dated 24.04.2025 passed by the
Judge, Family Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Family Suit No.962 of
2021. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court
granted decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act and allowed the suit filed by the respondent-wife on
the ground of cruelty.
2. The Family Court framed issues as under:-
(1) Whether the petitioner proves that after the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1902/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent
treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged in
the petition?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree
of dissolution of marriage on the above ground?
(3) What order and decree?
2.1 The Family Court answered the issues in the affirmative
and observed as under:-
37. The petitioner has successfully proven that the respondent
treated her with cruelty after the solemnization of their
marriage on 21.04.2015. Her consistent allegations,
supported by oral testimony from herself and Manoharlal,
documentary evidence including the bank passbook and
photographs, and police complaints/F.I.R., establish a pattern
of mental and physical cruelty, including financial demands,
threats, sexual misconduct, defamation, and misuse of
belongings. The respondent's defense is unsubstantiated,
with his admissions during cross-examination contradicting
his claims and highlighting his failure to provide evidence.
The respondent's conduct, as proven, caused significant
mental agony and physical harm, rendering cohabitation
impossible and meeting the legal standard for cruelty under
Section 13(1)(ia). Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
38. As the issue No.1 is answered in favor of the petitioner in
affirmative and the petitioner has successfully established
the fact that the respondent has treated with cruelty. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1902/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
petitioner is not taking advantage of her own wrong and
there is no disability for the purpose of relief as prayed for
because it appears from the record and evidence of this case
that the respondent is not ready and willing to continue his
marital bond with the petitioner. The evidence goes to show
that the petitioner cannot be said to be in collusion with the
respondent. Therefore, there is no legal ground or
impediment under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
not granting the petition. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled
to get decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and hence
the issue No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
3. Notice was issued on 20.06.2025 returnable on
18.07.2025. Thereafter by order dated 21.08.2025, the matter was
sent for mediation, which was reported to be successful.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is reported by
learned Advocates that parties are present. They are identified by
their respective Advocates. The parties have filed joint affidavit in
connection with MoU dated 19.09.2025, wherein it is stated as
under:-
1. The Marriage between the Appellant-husband
namely, Vimal Maheshkumar Ranglani and
Respondent-wife namely, Monikaben Poptani
Pragya W/o Vimal Maheshkumar Ranglani was
solemnized on 21.04.2015 and from the said
wedlock, there is no child.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1902/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
2. The parties have been staying separately since
Date 08-06-2020 (more than 5 years). The parties
have, thus, been living separately for a period of
more than one year and have not been able to live
together. All efforts to resolve their disputes and
reconciliation have failed and the marriage
between the parties has broken down
irretrievably.
3. The parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement and wish to part ways peacefully.
Parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by
mutual consent. Disputes between the parties
have been now amicably settled, therefore both
the parties hereby voluntarily withdraw the
allegations made by them against each other in
the proceedings before the trial court.
4. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted and
requested to this Hon'ble Court that, without
entering into the merits of the present appeal, it
should be allowed with the consent of both
parties, and the judgment and decree dated
24.04.2025 passed in Family Suit No. 962 of 2021
by Judge, Family Court No. 6, Ahmedabad be set
aside with consent and this Hon'ble Court also be
pleased to grant a decree of divorce by way of
mutual consent of both the parties without
entering into the merits of the present case of the
parties and obliged and decree of divorce may be
modified and the same may be converted in the
consent decree.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1902/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
5. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement between
the parties, the impugned judgment and decree of divorce granted
by the Family Court on the ground of cruelty is hereby modified.
The decree of divorce is granted in terms of the settlement arrived
at between the parties. The parties are directed to abide by terms
of settlement. The Family Court is directed to draw decree in
terms of the aforesaid order. The appeal stands disposed of
accordingly.
6. In view of disposal of the main appeal, Civil Application
does not survive. Disposed of accordingly.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SHITOLE
