Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Kumar Raina vs Jyoti Verma @ Jyoti Raina @ Jyoti Saket on 22 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40022
1 FA-293-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 293 of 2017
MAHENDRA KUMAR RAINA
Versus
JYOTI VERMA @ JYOTI RAINA @ JYOTI SAKET
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Singh Baghel - Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.01.2017
passed by the IInd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur,
whereby an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent has been rejected.
2. The marriage of appellant/husband and respondent/wife has
solemnized on 14.05.2014 at Rewa by following Hindu customs and rituals.
They lived together for approximately one week, and since 22.05.2014, the
respondent/wife has been residing with one Vikas Chandra @ Vicky.
Subsequently, both the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife jointly
filed an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
before the Family Court. Along with the application, they annexed copies of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40022
2 FA-293-2017
the marriage card, photographs, and Aadhaar cards. Their initial statements
were recorded on 23.02.2016, in which they admitted their marriage,
identified each other in the photographs, and verified the contents of the
application.
3. The Family Court fixed the next date of hearing after six months,
on 02.09.2016. On 03.01.2017, both parties again appeared before the Court
and deposed that it was not possible for them to continue their marital
relationship. They were referred for counseling, where they reiterated the
same and prayed for dissolution of the marriage.
4. However, the learned Family Court observed that the
respondent/wife has disclosed her name as Jyoti Verma @ Jyoti Raina @
Jyoti, daughter of V.P. Verma, but has not filed her Vakalatnama in the
name of Jyoti Verma @ Jyoti Raina. Further, in her statement recorded on
03.02.2016, she mentioned the name of Mahendra as her husband.
5. The Family Court also noted that in the marriage card, the
respondent's name was mentioned as Jyoti D/o Ramlali - V.P. Bodhya,
whereas in her Voter ID, her name appeared as Jyoti Verma W/o Vikas
Chandra. Consequently, the Court expressed doubt regarding the identity of
the respondent/wife and dismissed the application. Hence, the present appeal
has been filed.
6. We have perused the record of the Family Court and do not find
any justifiable reason to doubt the identity of the respondent/wife. In the
joint application, a photograph of the respondent/Jyoti Verma @ Jyoti Raina
@ Jyoti Saket, who is employed as a staff nurse at Kushabhau District
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40022
3 FA-293-2017
Hospital, was annexed. Her father's name is recorded as B.P. Verma, and an
affidavit is also annexed with the application.
7. In the wedding card, the respondent's name was mentioned as
Jyoti D/o Ramlali - V.P. Bodhya. It appears that the respondent's family
follows the Bodhya Dharma, as indicated by the symbol of the Sanchi Stupa
on the card, and most of the relatives have the surname "Bodhya." Her
father's initials also "V.P." match the name mentioned in the cause title. The
first statement recorded on 23.02.2016 names her as Jyoti Verma W/o
Mahendra, which is factually accurate, as the divorce had not yet been
granted. Appellant/ Mahendra, in his deposition, has admitted the marriage
with Jyoti Verma @ Jyoti Raina @ Jyoti Saket. The father of the
respondent/wife also appeared before the Court as PW-2, where his name
was recorded as Visheshar Prasad (i.e., V.P.), and he confirmed the marriage
of his daughter Jyoti with Mahendra.
8. It is, therefore, evident from the record that there is no ambiguity
or doubt regarding the identity of the respondent/wife. Both the
appellant/husband and the respondent/wife are employed in government
service, and there is no material to doubt that they would do impersonation to
get decree of divorce. The father of the respondent appeared in court and
identified his daughter. Hence, the learned Family Court erred in dismissing
the application filed by the parties which has wasted valuable 12 years of the
parties.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated
18.01.2017 passed by the Family Court is hereby set aside. The joint
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40022
4 FA-293-2017
application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed.
The learned Family Court is directed to draw a decree of divorce.
11. Record be sent back to the Family Court.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
