[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Wadekar vs Smt. Mahamaya @ Vedika on 3 December, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63280
1 FA-598-2020
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. 598 of 2020
PANKAJ WADEKAR
Versus
SMT. MAHAMAYA @ VEDIKA
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Chaturvedi - Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice B. P. Sharma
Appellant-husband has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2020, passed
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS No.1322-A/2018
whereby an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1955') filed by the appellant-husband
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed.
2. The respondent-wife, despite due service of notice, remained absent
and was proceeded ex-parte before the family Court. In the present appeal
also, the respondent has not appeared. Accordingly the matter is heard ex-
parte.
3. The facts of the case in short are that the marriage between appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63280
2 FA-598-2020
and respondent was solemnized on 23.04.2017 according to Hindu rites and
rituals. After marriage respondent-wife came to her matrimonial house and
lived there 24.04.2017 to 01.05.2017.
4. The counsel for the appellant-husband submits the appellant was
subjected to cruelty after the marriage. The respondent-wife was abusive and
quarrelsome lady. On 25.07.2017, when the respondent became ill at her
matrimonial home, she was taken to the hospital and it was diagnosed that
she was suffering from tuberculosis. This fact was not disclosed by the
respondent before the marriage. Even, she refused to take the medication for
tuberculosis. It is further submitted that after the marriage, the respondent
was not willing to establish physical relations with him. Despite several
attempts to communicate and understand the reasons for her reluctance, she
consistently refused to engage in marital intimacy and used to threaten the
appellant that she will lodge a criminal case against him. This situation
caused emotional distress and created a strain on the marital relationship.
The appellant asserts that the continued unwillingness to consummate the
marriage has affected the stability and harmony of the marital bond.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that on 25.07.2017,
the respondent left the house of the appellant and went with her father. It is
submitted that his wife would frequently threaten to lodge criminal
complaints against him without any justified cause. These repeated threats
created an atmosphere of fear and mental pressure within the matrimonial
home. For the purpose of protecting himself and his family from the
continual threats made by his wife, the appellant submitted a written
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63280
3 FA-598-2020
application before the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad on 17.06.2019
(Ex.P/1) and (ExP/2). A written complaint was also filed by the appellant
before the DIG, Bhopal, Division Bhopal on 12.03.2020 (Ex.P.4). Left with
no option, the appellant was compelled to file an application under 13 of the
Act of 1955. The evidence of appellant (PW/1) was corroborated by Vishnu
Vadekar-father of the appellant (PW/2) and Akhilesh Kumar Kashyap- friend
of the appellant (PW/3). It is submitted that there is complete breakdown of
marriage between the parties and there is no possibility of resumption of
marital ties.
6. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned family
Court found that although the relationship between the parties had
deteriorated, the appellant failed to establish the statutory grounds of cruelty
and desertion. Consequently, the application under Section 13 of the Act of
1955 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
7. The appellant respectfully submits that the trial court erred in not
allowing the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the
case, as well as the evidence placed on record, which clearly established
grounds for granting relief under the said provision. The impugned order
therefore suffers from legal infirmity and warrants interference by this
Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that there is complete breakdown of marriage
between the parties and there is no possibility of resumption of marital ties.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
9. On perusal of the material evidences available on record it reflects that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63280
4 FA-598-2020
there was no cordial relationship between appellant and respondent since
inception of their marriage. The appellant-husband has clearly narrated
several instances of mental cruelty demonstrating that the respondent-wife
was unwilling to take up the responsibilities expected of a wife and daughter-
in-law. The respondent-wife neither entered appearance nor bothered to file
any written statement, the matter therefore proceeded ex-parte before the
family Court. Even before this Court also the respondent-wife failed to
appear or contest the proceedings. Her continuous non-participation at both
the stages of litigation demonstrates lack of diligence and efforts to save her
marriage.
10. The family Court erred in refusing to grant the decree of divorce
despite the fact that the respondent-wife had remained ex-parte throughout
the proceedings. The appellant-husband's testimony duly corroborated by
two witnesses (PW/2 and PW/3) before the family Court remained wholly
unrebutted and unchallenged, as no evidence or cross-examination was done
on behalf of the respondent-wife. The mechanical dismissal of the petition
reflects non-application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction, as the
respondent's deliberate absence cannot defeat the petitioner's lawful claim.
11. It is well settled that cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act includes mental cruelty manifested through a spouse's conduct
that causes deep anguish, frustration, or a sense of humiliation, making it
impossible for the parties to continue their marital relationship. Tested on
this touchstone, the respondent's conduct, as evident from the record,
satisfies the statutory requirement of cruelty. The Trial Court has erred in not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63280
5 FA-598-2020
allowing the application filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955.
12. Moreover, since the appellant and the respondent have been living
separately since 2017, both the parties have moved forward in their
respective lives. The prolonged separation has allowed them to establish
independent routines, priorities and commitments making it evident that the
marital relationship has effectively come to an end. Their continued
individual progression reflects that reconciliation is neither practical nor in
the best interest of either party. The impugned order is therefore,
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
13. In view of above foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the
appellant-husband deserves to be allowed. The judgment and decree dated
24.07.2020, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS
No.1322-A/2018 is hereby set aside. The marriage between the appellant-
husband and the respondent-wife solemnized on 23.04.2017 is hereby
dissolved on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Decree be drawn accordingly.
Parties to bear their own costs.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
L.Raj
