Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajeet Singh vs Neetu Singh on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39622
1 FA-778-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 778 of 2015
AJEET SINGH
Versus
NEETU SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Sughosh Bhamore - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband
assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Satna in H.M. Case No.111/2024, whereby the
application filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
seeking dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.
The facts of the case in short are as under:-
(1). The marriage between the appellant/husband and the
respondent/wife was solemnized on 07.09.2009 in accordance with Hindu
rituals and customs. According to the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife
deserted him on 09.05.2011 and has since been residing with her parents at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39622
2 FA-778-2015
Satna. The appellant further alleged that immediately after the marriage, the
behavior of the respondent/wife was unusual. It is claimed that the
respondent/wife was in the habit of consuming pan masala and tobacco,
which, according to the appellant/husband, is not acceptable conduct for a
daughter-in-law in a traditional Hindu family.
(2). It is also alleged that the respondent/wife was suffering from
schizophrenia, for which she was taken for treatment to Dr. Pradeep Kumar,
a psychologist. On 09.05.2011, the parents of the respondent/wife allegedly
came to the appellant's house and took the respondent away with them
forcefully, leading the appellant to lodge an FIR at the concerned police
station. Subsequently, the respondent/wife lodged FIR No. 281/2011 against
the appellant and his family members for offences punishable under Section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
(3). Pursuant to the aforesaid events, the appellant/husband
approached the Family Court by filing an application under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage. The
respondent/wife appeared before the Family Court and opposed the said
application, contending that she is mentally sound and the allegations
regarding her consumption of pan masala and tobacco are false. She further
alleged that she was subjected to harassment by the appellant and his family
members on account of dowry demands.
(4). The respondent/wife also denied having undergone any treatment
from Dr. Pradeep Kumar, as claimed by the appellant/husband. It was further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39622
3 FA-778-2015
alleged that the family members of the appellant/husband had taken back her
jewellery, clothes, and other articles, and subsequently ousted her from the
matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing with her parents.
(5). Both parties were examined before the Family Court, and upon
appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Family Court, by
its judgment dated 14.08.2015, dismissed the application filed by the
appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal before this Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(6). During the pendency of this appeal, by judgment dated
30.01.2018, the appellant/husband, along with his brother and parents, was
convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna, for offences
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the basis of a complaint made by the
respondent/wife. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellant and the
other accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 19/2018 before the Court of the
9th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (M.P.), which was allowed vide
judgment dated 24.11.2020.
(7). The appellate court set aside the judgment of conviction dated
30.01.2018, recording a specific finding that the allegations of cruelty and
dowry demand were not proved. The respondent/wife has not filed any
document in the present appeal to rebut the findings recorded in the
judgment dated 24.11.2020, nor has the said judgment been challenged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39622
4 FA-778-2015
before this Court by way of any further criminal appeal.
(8). The appellant/husband and the respondent/wife have been living
separately since 2011, and there appears to be no possibility of reconciliation
between the parties. Attempts at mediation have also proved unsuccessful.
The allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were not established, as held
by the learned Appellate Court. The judgment dated 24.11.2020 has not been
challenged before this Court and, therefore, remains binding and has attained
finality.
(9). The Apex Court in Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (Transfer
Petition (Civil) No. 278/2023) has observed as follows:-
''11. In this context we wish to observe that a Hindu marriage is a
sacrament and is considered to be a sacred institution as a
foundation for a family and not a commercial venture. One of us
(Nagarathna, J.) in Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal,
(2024) 5 SCR 510 speaking for the Bench observed therein as
under:
"26. The promises made to each by the parties to a Hindu
marriage and the oath taken by them to remain friends forever lay
the foundation for a life-long commitment between the spouses
which should be realized by them. If such commitment to each
other is adhered to by the couple, then there would be far fewer
cases of breakdown of marriages leading to divorce or
separation." 11.1 But unfortunately in the present case, the parties
haven't adhered to their marital oath. Which of the two parties was
at fault for breaking that sacred marital bond is not something for
this Court to go into, but from the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, it would be safe to conclude that their marriage has
completely failed. As rightly observed by Dalveer Bhandari, J. in
the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558,
"since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be
compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by
trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has
ceased to exist."
12. Apart from the irreconcilable status of the relationship
between the parties, in the present case, another factor that has
weighed with this Court in favour of the exercise of the power
under Article 142(1) is that there is no child born out of the
wedlock and therefore, any direction to allow the parties to part
ways would only affect the parties themselves and not any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39622
5 FA-778-2015
innocent child.
13. Thus, this is a fit case for us to exercise our discretion under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage
between the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. Hence, the application is liable to be allowed and is
allowed.''
(7). In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed . The judgment
dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in H.M. No.
111/2014 is hereby set aside. The application filed under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed.
(8). The record shall be sent back to the Family Court.
(9). Decree be drawn accordingly.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
