Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Sharma vs Nalini Sharma on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39653
1 FA-530-2015
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. 530 of 2015
RAJESH SHARMA
Versus
NALINI SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Amit Khatri - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondent.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This is an appeal filed by appellant husband against judgment
dated 12/05/2015 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.38-A/2013, whereby petition
filed by appellant-husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act
seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case in short are that marriage of appellant and
respondent was solemnized on 06/02/2010 under the Hindu customs and
rituals. Before the marriage there were an affair and it was an intercaste
marriage. Out of the marriage there is no issue between them. According
to the appellant she lived with him as wife for six months, thereafter she
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39653
2 FA-530-2015
got a job in Pune in a private company and since then she is residing
there. Respondent is not willing to reside with him to fulfill the marital
obligation. So long she lived with him, she used to abuse his Grand
Mother by filthy language. She wants to live freely as per her choice.
She has no sense of dressing. She disclosed to him that she would
perform second marriage by searching a suitable boy. She used to
threaten him for false implication in a dowry case. She left the house
alongwith jewellery, cloths and cash of Rs.1,20,000/-. She lodged a
complaint in Police Station also on false charges. On the aforesaid
grounds the appellant filed petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage
Act seeking dissolution of marriage.
3. Respondent appeared and filed written statement denying
allegations by way of special pleading. She pleaded that appellant
belongs to upper caste and she belongs to lower caste, therefore, she was
humiliated by caste by Grand Mother, therefore, she had no option but to
left the house and live separately. Appellant promised her that he will
also shift to Puna and there they will live together, therefore, she never
deserted him and still wants to live as wife.
4. Learned Family Court framed two issues for adjudication,
which are as under :-
१. या अनावे दका ने ववाह के प ात आवेदक पित के साथ ू रतापूण यवहार
कया ?
२. या आवेदक अनावे दका से हुये अपने ववाह को व छे दत कये जाने क आ ि
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39653
3 FA-530-2015
ा करने का अिधकार है ?
5. In support of allegations, the appellant examined himself by
filing affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. He was cross-
examined. He also examined Kavita Agrawal as PW-2, who resides in
neighboring house and deposed in respect of behaviour of respondent.
Appellant also examined Rajdeep Singh Lamba as PW-3 a dairy owner,
who used to visit house of appellant and also noticed the behaviour and
dressing sense of respondent.
6. In defence respondent examined herself as DW-1 by way of
affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. She was cross-examined.
She also examined her elder sister Shalini Chakrawarti as DW-2. She
has also made an allegation against appellant and his family members.
Respondent made a complaint to Paramarsh Kendra, Mahila Thana
Jabalpur, which is Exhibited as D-1.
7. After appreciating evidence that came on record learned Family
Court vide judgment dated 12/05/2015 has dismissed the petition under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, hence this appeal before this Court.
8. Learned Family Court has dismissed the petition merely on
three grounds; firstly that respondent lived with appellant for six months,
secondly appellant has not made serious efforts to bring her back and
thirdly that at present there is possibility of reunion between them
because the dispute between them is normal dispute as happens between
husband and wife. Even if the aforesaid findings are correct on the basis
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39653
4 FA-530-2015
of evidence came at the relevant point of time, but this appeal is pending
since 2015 i.e. for more than a decade and during this period either of the
party has not made any serious effort to reconcile and resolve the dispute
between them. They are living separately since 2011 i.e. for more than
15 years.
9. Counsel for appellant submits that he has discussed separately
with family members of respondent and they are also not hopeful that
there is any possibility of reunion between them. Dispute which has
started on petty issue has flare up and reached to a stage that they do not
want to talk to each other, therefore, the love marriage which has been
started in year 2010 has ended within six months and thereafter 15 years
have been passed and they are not willing to reside with each other. The
wife has never filed an application under Section 9 of Hindi Marriage
Act seeking restoration of conjugal right. Merely denying an allegation
is not sufficient to establish that she was willing to reside with her
husband. She got a job in Pune and living there. In complaint as well as
in evidence she admits that even she is not going back to her father's
house. In her support her real sister came forward and recorded the
evidence. Notice of this appeal was also served on sister's address,
therefore, it appears that wife is living happily separately with parents as
well as husband. The marriage has virtually become a dead marriage.
There is no possibility of revival, therefore, appellant is entitled for
decree of divorce.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39653
5 FA-530-2015
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 12/05/2015 passed
by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil
Suit No.38-A/2013 is quashed. The marriage between appellant and
respondent dated 06/02/2010 is hereby dissolved. Let the decree be
drawn accordingly.
11. Let record of trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
as
