Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Bahadur Singh Parihar vs Smt. Babli @ Jaywanti Singh on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39728
1 FA-169-2018
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. 169 of 2018
VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
SMT. BABLI @ JAYWANTI SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Dhimole - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Lawkush Prasad Mishra - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Appellant - Vijay Bahadur Singh Parihar is present through his
counsel.
The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
r/w Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed against the
judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge
of Family Court, Satna in Case No. HM/196/2015, whereby a decree of
judicial separation has been granted in favor of the husband. The present
appeal is filed seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
2. As per the facts of the case the marriage of appellant was
solemnized with the respondent in the year 1992 and out of the said wedlock,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39728
2 FA-169-2018
son Amar Singh and daughter Ambalika were born. According to the
appellant, the respondent lodged a case against him under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. for domestic violence and Sections 341, 294, 324/34 and 506 of IPC.
However, he has been acquitted in all the cases and the details are mentioned
in para 2 of the judgment which are reproduced below:-
izdj.k esa orZeku esa ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd vukosfndk ds
vkosnu ij vkosnd ds fo:) /kkjk 498 , dk nafMr
izdj.k dzekad 264@10 ntZ gqvk Fkk ftlesa U;kf;d
eft0izFke Js.kh jkeiqj c?ksyku }kjk fnukad 26-06-2012
dks fu.kZ; ikfjr djrs gq;s vkosnd dks ,d o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k
dkjkokl ls nafMr fd;k x;k FkkA ftlds fo:) vkosnd
us f}rh; vij l= U;k;k/kh'k lruk ds U;k;ky; esa
nkafMd vihy dzekad 209@12 fnukad 16-07-2012 dks
lafLFkr dh Fkh ftlesa U;k;ky; }kjk 14-07-14 dks vkns'k
ikfjr djrs gq;s vkosnd dks nks"keqDr fd;k x;k FkkA
izdj.k esa ;g Hkh Lohd`r gS fd vukosfndk ds }kjk
vkosnd ds fo:) /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- dh ;kfpdk ,e-ts-lh-
dza- 35@2010 U;kf;d eft0izFke Js.kh jkeiqj c?ksyku dh
U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa mDr U;k;ky; us
fu.kZ; ikfjr djrs gq, fnukad 31-07-2013 dks 5000 :I,
izfrekg Hkj.k iks"k.k fn, tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k Fkk
ftlds fo:) vkosnd }kjk vkijkf/kd iqujh{k.k dza0
237@13 fnukad 30-08-2013 dks lafLFkr fd;k Fkk] rc
U;k;ky; us fnukad 27-09-14 dks vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq,
izdj.k dks iqu% lquokbZ esa fy;k tkdj fu.kZ; ikfjr djus
gsrq izdj.k fjek.M fd;k Fkk ftl ij iqu% fopkj.k i'pkr
fnukad 04-08-15 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj iwoZ esa fd;s x;s
vkns'k 5000 :I, izfrekg ds LFkku ij 2500 :i, izfrekg
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39728
3 FA-169-2018
Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k vukosfndk dks vnk fd, tkus dk
vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA blh izdkj vukosfndk us vkosnd
,oa jkds'k flag ds fo:) /kkjk 341]294]324@34] 506 Hkk-
na-fo- dk vkijkf/kd izdj.k dzekad 2440@10 iathc)
djk;k Fkk ftlesa fd U;kf;d eft0izFke Js.kh jkeiqj c?
ksyku }kjk vkns'k fnukad 07-10-14 ds ek/;e ls
vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"keqDr dj fn;k FkkA
3. On the basis of pleadings, learned Family Court framed four issues
for adjudication and out of four the findings have been recorded on Issues
No.1 and 2 that the respondent is a legally married wife and her behavior was
cruel towards him, but the appellant has been denied the decree of divorce
and granted the decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
4. In compliance of order dated 07.05.2025, the appellant is present in
person before this Court and submits that he was appointed as a daily rated
employee in the Forest Department and under the Circular dated 07.10.2016
he has been given the status of permanent employee, therefore, he is getting
only Rs. 24,000/- per month and out of which he is giving Rs. 4,000/- as
maintenance to the respondent/wife.
5. It is further submitted by the appellant that apart from that
maintenance, the respondent/wife is in possession of the land bearing Survey
No.44, Area 85 Decimal (ancestral land) is in illegal possession of the
respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are living
separately for more than 20 years and their children have been settled,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39728
4 FA-169-2018
therefore, the decree of divorce be granted.
7. The appellant is ready to transfer the land in the name of respondent
in lieu of permanent alimony. In addition to the aforesaid, he is ready for
continuing to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month for her maintenance. This amount of
Rs.4,000/- plus land bearing Khasra No.44, Area 85 Decibel shall be the full
and final settlement between the parties.
8. The judgment and decree dated 05.12.2017 is hereby modified to the
extent indicated herein above.
9. In view of above, the present Appeal is disposed of.
10. Decree be drawn, accordingly.
11. Record be sent back to the Family Court.
C.C. as per rules
(VIVEK RUSIA) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
