Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Sharma vs Smt. Rekha Anand Sharma @ Rekha Ravindra ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
FIRST APPEAL NO. 666 of 2023
ANAND SHARMA
Vs.
SMT. REKHA SHARMA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Vivek Kumar Vyas - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma -Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Delivered on day of October, 2025
Per: Justice Anand Pathak,
1. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984
is preferred by the appellant/husband being crestfallen by the
judgment dated 16-02-2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gwalior in RCSHM No.20371/2018 whereby the
divorce petition preferred by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i-d)(i-
[k) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act of 1955") has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that marriage of appellant and
respondent was solemnized on 24-06-2011 at Gwalior through Hindu
rites and rituals. According to appellant, soon after marriage,
behaviour of respondent/wife was changed and she started fighting
over the small issues. Respondent/wife deprived the appellant from
the marital obligations. After marriage, couple started residing at
Virar in joint family but behaviour of respondent turned irritating and
she used to argue with the parents of appellant. Respondent/wife also
started pressurizing the appellant to live in Gwalior as she was not
interested in living at Virar and she also pressurized the appellant and
his family members to give her share in the property otherwise she
will implicate them in dowry case. It is also stated by the appellant
that two times respondent/wife terminated her pregnancy without
prior intimation to the appellant or his family members.
3. Domestic incompatibility continued between the parties despite lapse
of two years. As a result of domestic incompatibility, in the year
2013, respondent/wife left the matrimonial house along with gold
jewellery of 250gms. and Rs.2,70,000/- and started residing at her
maternal home. Behaviour of wife was not good with her husband
and his family members and further she used to quarrel with the
family members and she left the matrimonial house in 2013.
Thereafter, in 2016 she again came at Virar along with her maternal
uncle (ekek) and stated that if her share in the property is not given
then she will implicate them in false case of offence under Section
498-A of IPC. At the house of appellant at Virar, respondent/wife
misbehaved with her husband and mother-in-law. Therefore,
appellant/husband preferred divorce petition seeking decree of
divorce on two grounds; cruelty and desertion at S.D. Basai, Thane
(Maharashtra). On the application of respondent/wife, this divorce
petition was transferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Family
Court, Gwalior.
4. Respondent filed reply to divorce application and denied all the
allegations levelled by the appellant. It is submitted that despite
spending Rs.8 lac with other household articles in her marriage,
appellant used to demand dowry and used to treat her inhumanely.
She has always tried to fulfill her marital duties by living in her in-
laws' house, but she was expelled due to non-fulfillment of demand
of dowry. It was the respondent who preferred application under
Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before
the Family Court, Gwalior which was decided ex parte in favour of
respondent as appellant did not turn up in the proceedings. It appears
that appellant has neglected his responsibilities and not discharging
his obligations as husband. It is also submitted that she had not taken
away any jewellery or cash from the house of appellant and it was a
false allegation. Even otherwise, she is ready and willing to live with
appellant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of divorce application.
5. Proceedings started before the Family Court and after conducting
trial in the matter and considering all the rival submissions of parties
and the evidence produced before it, learned Family Court dismissed
the divorce petition of the appellant, therefore, appellant is before
this Court.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the
Family Court, Gwalior failed to consider the material aspects of the
matter and the evidence produced before it and erred in not granting
the decree of divorce in favour appellant. Respondent is living
separately from appellant since 2013 without any valid reason.
Respondent/wife did not fulfill her marital obligations and she was
interested in the properties of his family and she loudly used to say
that if her share in the property is not given to her, then she will
implicate all the family members in false cases. Respondent has
deserted him and deprived him of happiness of marital life. It is
further submitted that two times respondent/wife got pregnant but she
removed her pregnancy without intimating the appellant or his
family members and this was the mental cruelty faced by the
appellant. When grandmother of appellant died, respondent did not
turn up to his house and she was not interested in living with the
appellant since beginning rather she was interested in obtaining
property of his family. Therefore, it is submitted that under these
circumstances, appellant is entitled for a decree of divorce on the
grounds of cruelty and desertion.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/wife by supporting
the impugned judgment opposed the contentions of appellant and
submitted that she still wants to live with appellant in her matrimonial
home and wants to fulfill her duties as a wife by maintaining conjugal
life. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. This is a case where appellant/husband wants decree of divorce on
the ground of cruelty and desertion. The grounds of cruelty and
desertion as put forth by the appellant were declined by the Family
Court and the divorce petition preferred by the appellant was
dismissed. It is an admitted fact that marriage of couple was
performed on 24-06-2011 and since then they are not happy in their
married life. Respondent/wife is living at her maternal home since
2013 as admitted by her in para 10 of her statement before the Family
Court.
10. The term ''cruelty'' as used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, cannot be
defined in given parameters and there cannot be a comprehensive
definition of ''cruelty'' within which all kinds of cases of cruelty can
be covered and each case has to be considered depending upon its
own unique factual circumstances. In the case of Gurbux Singh vs.
Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that the matrimonial life should be assessed as a whole and
persistent ill-conduct over a fairly long of time would amount to
cruelty and further held that the ill-conduct must be precedent for a
fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an
extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party
finds its extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may
amount to mental cruelty.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat
(Mrs) (1994) 1 SCC 33 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a)
can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other
party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible
for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty
must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be
expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged
party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and
continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that
the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the
petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to
the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they
move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living
together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant
facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to
set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to
cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case
having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a
case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the
context in which they were made.
12. So far as the legal principles with regard to ''desertion'' is concerned,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1957 SC 176 (Bipinchandra
Jaisinghbai Shah Vs. Prabhavati), has explained that for the offence
of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential
conditions must be there., namely, (1) the factum of separation, and
(2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus
deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted
spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of
conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the
matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid.
Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and
circumstances of each case. The inference may be drawn from certain
facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same
inference; that is to say, the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose
which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of
intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of
separation. If, in fact, there has been a separation, the essential
question always is whether that act could be attributable to an animus
deserendi. [See:- AIR 1964 SC 40 (Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani
Vs. Meena alias Mota), (2002) 1 SCC 308 {Adhyatma Bhattar
Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi} to (2006) 4 SCC 558
{Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli}].
13. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2011 and since 2013 parties
are living separately on the small issues and fighting against each
other since then. Thus, by efflux of time the hope of reunion of
couple appears to be eclipsed. The concept of "irretrievable
breakdown of marriage" has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of R. Srinivas Kumar V. R. Shametha, 2019 (4)
SCC 409, Munish Kakkar Vs Nidhi Kakkar, AIR 2020 SC 111 and
Neha Tyagi Vs Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2022) 3 SCC 86,
and held that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a marriage
where husband and wife have been living separately for a
considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of their living
together again.
14. On examining the case at the touchstone of principles of law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-cited cases, it is clear that
evidence led by appellant clearly demonstrates that after marriage
between couple in the year 2011, respondent lived with appellant till
2013. Respondent present in person before this Court, submitted that
she is ready to live in matrimonial fold again, but appellant is not
ready to accept her. During the proceedings of this appeal, appellant
offered Rs.5 lacs along with all dues of maintenance as permanent
alimony to the respondent/wife.
15. The marriage was solemnized on 24-06-2011 and parties are living
separately since 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years. Due to rapture of
marital cord, no child was born. Matrimonial bond is completely
broken and is beyond repair. This Court left with no other option, but
thinks it appropriate that since relationship of both the parties must
end as its continuation is causing cruelty to either of the parties,
therefore, the long separation, absence of cohabitation, the complete
breakdown of all meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between
the two, has to be read as ''cruelty''. Where the marital relationship
has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and
absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such marriage would
only mean giving sanction to cruelty with each is inflicting on the
other.
16. So far as the question of grant of one-time settlement as full and final
settlement is concerned, in matrimonial cases, the Court has to
ascertain the financial capacity/status of parties depending on source
of income and expenditure for determining amount of
maintenance/permanent alimony/one-time settlement, this Court is
left with no other option but to think it just and proper to allow one-
time settlement to the tune of Rs.5 lacs in favour of respondent as
offered by the appellant, which is payable to the respondent by
appellant by way of Demand Draft or any other mode within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. The marriage between the parties is annulled, subject to
payment of full and final settlement of one-time settlement granted in
favour of respondent.
17. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case and the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is
of the concerned view that the marital relationship between the
parties has broken down irretrievably, therefore, it deserves to be
dissolved. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the Family Court is
set aside and the marriage between the parties is declared to be
dissolved. A decree be drawn accordingly.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
19. Appeal stands disposed of and allowed in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
CHAURASIY
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae27e
84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4A29
A
6DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2446E,
cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2025.10.30 11:42:32 +05'30'
