Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Anushree vs Amit Khan on 28 October, 2025

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880
JBP:53880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
FIRST APPEAL No. 1644 of 2018
SMT. ANUSHREE
Versus
AMIT KHAN

Appearance:
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mahendra Choubey - Advocate for the respondent.

FIRST APPEAL No. 1471 of 2018
SMT. ANUSHREE
Versus
AMIT KHAN

Appearance:
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mahendra Choubey - Advocate for the respondent.

Reserved on : 13.10.2025
Pronounced on : 28.10.2025

JUDGEMENT

Per: Justice B.P. Sharma

This common judgment shall govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 1471/2018 and 1644/2018, as both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880 JBP:53880

598-A/2015.

015. By the said judgment, the learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent (husband) u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (in short 'the Act') dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties on the ground of cruelty, and further dismissed the counter-claim claim preferred by the appellant (wife)u/s 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved thereby, the wife has filed these two appeals u/s 28 of the Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. The brieff facts of the case are that the appellant (wife) was married to the respondent on 17.11.2005 in Jabalpur, following traditional Hindu customs. Out of the wedlock, a son named Vedaditya was born on 25.05.2009. There were certain misunderstanding between th the parties which lead separation between them and since 2014 they were living separately. It is alleged that the respondent under the influence of his

598-A/2015 A/2015 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty u/s 13 of the Act (Annexure A A/1).

/1). The appellant filed a written statement on 06.04.2017 denying all allegations (Annexure A/2) and subsequently filed a counterclaim u/s 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights (Annexure A/3). The respondent filed her reply to the counterclaim onn 25.04.2017 (Annexure A/4). Issues were framed by the trial court on 12.05.2017 (Annexure A/5). The respondent examined himself and other witnesses in his support documentary evidence were also produced. The appellant, in turn, presented her evidence and reiterated her allegations in the reply.

3. The appellant (wife) filed her written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her. She contended that she had always

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880 JBP:53880

fulfilled her marital obligations with devotion and sincerity, and the disputes between them were ordinary domestic differences that occur in every household. She alleged that it was the husband and his mother who treated her with cruelty and compelled her to leave the matrimonial house. She was always ready and willing to reside wit withh her husband and prayed that the petition for divorce be dismissed. Along with her written statement, she also preferred a counter counter-claim claim u/s 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Upon careful evaluation of the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, the learned trial court found that the husband had succeeded in proving the allegations of cruelty against the wife. It was observed that the evidence of the husband was consistent and corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses, whe whereas reas the wife failed to rebut the material allegations. The court found that the wife's conduct was persistently quarrelsome, that she was in the habit of raising disputes on trivial matters, and that she often used to insult and abuse the husband and his mother without provocation.

5. It was also found that the husband's mother was compelled to live separately due to repeated humiliation and quarrels instigated by the wife. The incident dated 26.04.2012, when the wife's relatives came to the matrimonial house and quarreled with the respondent ondent and his mother was also proved. Considering the cumulative effect of all these facts, the trial court held that the husband had been subjected to cruelty for a prolonged period between 2005 and 2015.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880 JBP:53880

appreciate the fact that the appellant had already filed an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights prior to passing the decree ecree of dissolution. The said application clearly reflected the appellant's intent and willingness to resume cohabitation and discharge her marital obligations. Therefore, the decree of divorce was unwarranted and contrary to the principles of matrimonial law.

7. It is further argued that the Trial Court did not consider the fact that a minor son was born out of the wedlock and is currently in the custody of the appellant and the welfare of the child, which is of paramount importance, was not given due wei weight.

ght. It is submitted that the dissolution of marriage without regard to the future and stability of the child is contrary to settled principles of family law. It is further contended that the Trial Court itself recorded a finding that the appellant had not deserted the respondent. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the marriage ought not to have been dissolved, particularly when there was neither desertion nor proven cruelty of such magnitude as to make cohabitation impossible.

8. Learned counsel aalso lso invited the Court's attention to Exhibit P.2, a compromise dated 02.09.2014 and submitted that said document clearly shows that the respondent had, in collusion with his mother, attempted to secure divorce through extrajudicial means. It is also submit submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider this document and its implications, and the possibility of collusion was not adequately addressed. It is also submitted that the respondent himself had withdrawn from the company of the appellant without any reasonable justification and, therefore, cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The appellant

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880 JBP:53880

had made sincere efforts to continue the relationship, which were not reciprocated by the respondent.

9. On the basis of the above submission submissions, s, it is argued that the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 is arbitrary, unjust, and against the settled principles of matrimonial law, and therefore, liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to the misbehaviour and harassment committed by the appellant, the mother of the respondent was compelled to live in a rented house separately. In March, 2014, mother of the appellant separated out from the house of his son and lived separately, as the ap appellant pellant made the life of respondent and her mother miserable. Thereafter mother of the appellant filed an application for grant of maintenance and the same was allowed, as the appellant got the compassionate appointment. All the time, appellant's mother andd family members had threatened the respondent to implicate in dowry case. To get rid of from the situation, at last the respondent filed the civil suit for decree of divorce. Learned trial court after appreciating all the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit of the respondent by dismissing the claim of the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that both the appeals may be dismissed.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and reached a just conclusion. The material evidence unmistakably establishes that the behaviour of the w wife was consistently hostile, abusive, and disrespectful towards the husband and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880 JBP:53880

his mother. The repeated quarrels over petty household matters, persistent monetary demands, and threats to involve the husband and his mother in false criminal proceedings cl clearly early amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

12. Cruelty in matrimonial law need not always be physical; mental cruelty, which causes deep anguish, disappointment, and frustration, can also be sufficient ground for dis dissolution solution of marriage. The acts of the wife, viewed in their entirety, indicate a pattern of behaviour that destroyed the peace of the matrimonial home and made it impossible for the husband to live with her. Such conduct, extending over a decade, cannot be considered as mere wear and tear of married life. The consistent findings of the trial court that the wife's conduct caused mental suffering to the husband and forced the mother mother-in-law law to live separately, are well supported by the evidence on record and ccall all for no interference.

13. As regards the counter counter-claim claim u/s 9 of the Act, the plaintiff failed to prove that she was genuinely willing to live with the husband or that she was prevented by him from resuming cohabitation. Her conduct of living separately for more than two years without justification itself disentitles her to claim restitution. The trial court rightly concluded that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is an equitable relief and cannot be granted in favour of a spouse who has withdr withdrawn awn from cohabitation without reasonable cause and whose conduct has been found to be cruel. The evidence produced by the respondent in sequence has not been substantially refuted, nor has it been explained by the appellant appellant-wife. All the facts/evidence pro produced by the respondent-husband husband fall in the category of mental cruelty.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53880 JBP:53880

14. In an appeal u/s 28 of the Act, the High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction similar to that u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On a close examination of the record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has carefully appreciated the evidence, applied the correct principles of law, and passed a reasoned judgment based on the facts and circumstances of the case. There is neither misreading of evidence nor any perversity ity in the findings that would warrant interference by this Court.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the learned trial court was fully justified in granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and in dismissing the counter counter-claim claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The impugned judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in CS No. 598 598- A/2015, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Accordingly,

1471/2018 & 1644/2018 filed by the appellant-wife appellant are dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Learned Family Court are hereby affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

16. Let the record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith alongg with a copy of this judgment for information and compliance.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) (B.P. SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE