[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neeta Gujare vs Khagesh Chandra Gujare on 3 December, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63384
1 FA-894-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 894 of 2015
SMT. NEETA GUJARE
Versus
KHAGESH CHANDRA GUJARE
Appearance:
Shri Bhoj Ram Vijaywar - Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma
1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has
been filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2015
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Betul in Civil Suit No. 202-
A/2014, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce and return of stridhan
was dismissed.
2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.04.2012
according to Hindu rites and rituals. The appellant alleged that her
parents had given Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry for purchase of household
articles, but the respondent's family neither purchased any items and kept
it in their pocket for their personal use. It is alleged that the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63384
2 FA-894-2015
and his family further demanded Rs. 15,00,000/-, and the respondent did
not establish physical relations with appellant after marriage. According
to the appellant, although both resided under one roof, the respondent
avoided marital obligations and she suspected that he was impotent but
refrained from disclosing the issue due to family reputation. It was
alleged that during a visit to her parental home on the occasion of Raksha
Bandhan, her mother-in-law allegedly snatched her gold ornaments.
Despite the conclusion of the festivities, no one from the matrimonial
home came to take her back. Later, when she returned, her mother-in-law
objected to her stay and filed a case against her, due to which the
respondent took a rented accommodation. It was also stated in the
petition that the appellant was not willing to stay at the rented premises
as it was too small and the respondent lacked sufficient income to pay
rent. She wished to reside in the matrimonial home, but her in-laws
allegedly harassed her and persisted with the demand for Rs. 15,00,000/-.
She was forcefully driven out of the house, due to which she lodged a
complaint at the Mahila Thana, Bhopal, and thereafter filed the petition
for divorce and recovery of stridhan.
3. The respondent filed a written statement denying all allegations. He
contended that the appellant herself avoided consummation of marriage
and frequently quarrelled with his family, particularly his mother. He
asserted that he had arranged a rented house to avoid disputes, but the
appellant refused to reside there and left the matrimonial house.
Consequently, he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It was also stated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63384
3 FA-894-2015
proceedings under Section 498-A IPC were instituted only as a
counterblast. In the said criminal case, the respondent and his family
members were acquitted.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed.
After appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court found that no case for
divorce is made out and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and decree, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and
decree passed by the Family Court are perverse and contrary to the
evidence on record. It was argued that the Family Court erred in holding
that the respondent did not treat the appellant with cruelty. It is also
submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence relating to
payment of dowry, stridhan, and the continuous harassment meted out by
the respondent and his family. It is urged that the respondent avoided
marital relations, yet filed proceedings under Section 9 only to create a
façade of bona fides. It is further submitted that the parties have been
living separately since July 2012, and the marriage has broken down
irretrievably. It has been submitted that the respondent failed
for consummation of marriage, therefore, she is entitled to a decree of
divorce.
6. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent/defendant in spite of
service of notice. Hence, respondent is proceeded exparte.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
8. The respondent/husband deposed before the trial Court and admitted
in his cross-examination that after 2-3 months of marriage, the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63384
4 FA-894-2015
went to her maternal home and did not return to the matrimonial house.
He also admitted that his mother had lodged a criminal case against the
appellant. He further admitted that since 2012, the appellant has been
living separately and no physical relationship was ever developed
between them. He denied having taken Rs. 2 lakh and also denied the
contents of Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2, which are the list of the persons, who
gave money and gift items.
9. The trial Court, in paragraph 14, recorded a finding that the appellant
did not want to live with the respondent, and for the last many years the
respondent had neither contacted nor spoken to her. The respondent also
admitted that the appellant has been living separately in a rented house
and that she no longer wishes to live with him..
10. From the statement of the appellant, it is clear that the respondent's
family pressured her to do household work. However, she was a working
woman and had to leave for her job early in the morning at 6:00 a.m.,
due to which she was unable to perform all the household tasks. This
became a cause of quarrels between the appellant and the respondent's
family. She further alleged that the respondent's family members were
greedy and, immediately after the marriage, began demanding dowry.
She also asserted that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment,
which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home, and since 2012 she
has been residing permanently with her parents.
11. Material available on record clearly shows that both parties treating
each other with cruelty and made allegations to each other. Marriage was
performed on 14.04.2012 and they lived together for about 2-3 months
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63384
5 FA-894-2015
and during that period they did not consummate the marriage and made
allegations to each other. Admittedly appellant and respondent lived
together for a short time. Parties have been living separately for more
than 13 years. It is not conducive to dismiss the appeal for divorce. No
useful purpose would be served in dismissing the appeal. Even after
dismissal of appeal, there is no chance that the parties will restart their
marital life. It is an admitted fact that the parties have been living
separately since 2012 i.e. for more than last 13 years. Acrimony between
the parties has increased with duration of time.
12. From evidence available on record, it is clear that the relations
between the parties have evidently grown sour beyond the point of return
and such a long period of separation has turned these differences
irreconcilable. It is unfortunate that the parties have already spent a large
number of years of their adult lives fighting marital battles in the
courtrooms. The parties still have a considerable natural life ahead of
them to look forward to. It is evident that in the instant case, marital
discord has reached to a point of no remedy and there is a complete
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Therefore, no purpose shall be
served by insisting the parties to continue a marital relation which is
already dead and we are, accordingly, inclined to allow the appeal
preferred by the appellant/wife and grant divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which also falls within the ambit of
cruelty.
13. Insofar as the claim regarding return of stridhan is concerned, the
appellant/wife has failed to produce any cogent or reliable evidence to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63384
6 FA-894-2015
prove that the articles mentioned in the petition before the trial Court
were ever handed over to the respondent or his family members. The list
filed as Ex.P-1 does not bear the signatures of the appellant or any of her
family members. Moreover, no witness was examined before the trial
Court to prove or authenticate the said document. On the record, there is
no substantive evidence to establish that the appellant or her father had
given dowry to the respondent or his family. It is also pertinent to note
that no specific prayer for return of stridhan has been made in the present
appeal.
14. In these circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to
dissolve the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the
respondent on 14.04.2012 and passes judgment of divorce under
Sections 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Resultantly, first
appeal is allowed on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment dated 20.08.2015 passed by family
Court in Civil Suit No.202-A/2014 is set aside. Marriage between
appellant and respondent dated 14.04.2012 is dissolved.
15. Decree be drawn accordingly.
16. Parties bear their own costs
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SM
