Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maltibai Choudhary vs Pradeep Choudhary on 20 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1 FA-1643-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 1643 of 2018
(SMT. MALTIBAI CHOUDHARY Vs PRADEEP CHOUDHARY )
Dated : 20-08-2025
Shri Pradeep Kumar Naveria - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Prashant Chourasia - Advocate for respondent.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Registry is directed to list this matter for final hearing in the month of
December, 2025.
Interim order to continue till next date of hearing.
.......
Appellant has preferred first appeal against judgment and decree
dated 19.04.2006 passed in matrimonial case No.73-A/2003 by District
Judge Tikagarh.
2. Appellant was plaintiff and respondent was defendant before the
Trial Court. Marriage between appellant and respondent was performed on
31.05.1998 at Tikamgarh according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Family
members of respondent suppressed the fact of mental illness of respondent.
When respondent arrived at house after marriage, her behavior was abnormal,
she remained ignorant and unaware of works of married woman in the house.
She continuously used to move her legs for getting modesty of woman. She
did not share household work with other family members. She used to laugh
and cry without any reasons. When she was questioned for her behavior, she
used to deny that she laughed or cried. All the time appellant was living
2 FA-1643-2018
under mental harassment and tension. Respondent did not have any love and
affection for appellant and always used to do strange works in the house and
there was always possibility of some serious accident in the house due to her
behavior. Respondent was treated at Delhi, Lalitpur, Gajiabad and doctors
diagnosed her to be suffering from psychiatrics problem. Her presence in
house was threat to mother and children of appellant and appellant was
facing great hardship and trouble in living with 24 hours mental tension. In
these circumstances, appellant had filed a case for dissolution of marriage on
grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1) (iii) of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
3. Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that he examined
himself, his neighbor Bhagwan Das (PW/2), one Pritish Jain who was
acquainted with behavior of respondent and also examined Dr. Sudha Gupta
& Dr. Anil Dohre (PW/4 & PW/5), who treated the respondent. Learned trial
Court had committed an error of law in not considering aforesaid evidence
available on record. Provisions of law was misconstrued and judgment and
decree was passed in cryptic and arbitrary manner without analyzing
evidence available on record. Trial Court ought to have granted decree of
divorce on grounds of cruelty and on fact that respondent is suffering from
incurable mental disease. He makes a prayer for allowing the appeal and
dissolution of marriage on aforesaid grounds.
4. None appears for respondent. Respondent was served with a notice
and Shri Rakesh Jain - counsel was appearing for respondent. Respondent
was also paid maintenance pendetide on 28.03.2011. Thereafter, case was
3 FA-1643-2018
listed for final hearing. None appears for respondent in proceedings of the
Court, therefore, S.P.C was issued to respondent on 24.02.2025 . Even after
issuance of S.P.C, none appears for respondent, therefore, respondent is
proceeded ex parte.
5. Respondent defended the case on ground that false grounds were
raised in the petition as appellant wants to do second marriage. Appellant
and his family members are cruel and used to harass the respondent for
dowry. She was manhandled by mother of appellant and mother of appellant
banged her head against the wall which resulted in uneasiness, numbness and
depression to respondent. She is not suffering from any mental disease.
Appellant and his family members demanded Rs.2 Lacs. Due to said reason,
her father also died because of heart attack on 05.11.2000. It was respondent,
who was treated with cruelty. Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of
the parties and evidence available on record, came to a finding that appellant
failed to put suggestions to mother of respondent-Vedwati that her mental
illness was suppressed for getting her married to appellant. Appellant also
failed to prove that respondent was suffering from mental illness, which
cannot be treated. Doctors have also not stated that respondent was suffering
from a disease which cannot be cured. Doctor has not stated that respondent
was suffering from such a mental disease, which is incurable and her
behavior was abnormal and appellant cannot live with her, therefore, on basis
of said finding, suit for dissolution of marriage was dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for appellant. Perused pleadings, evidence
available on record and judgment passed by the trial Court.
4 FA-1643-2018
....
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
nd
