Madhya Pradesh High Court
Niranjan vs Smt.Neela on 2 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
1 FA-593-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
FIRST APPEAL No. 593 of 2005
NIRANJAN
Versus
SMT.NEELA
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for appellant.
None for respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Heard on : 06.08.2025
Pronounced on : 02.09.2025
JUDGEMENT
Per: Justice Vishal Dhagat
Appellant has filed appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 challenging judgment and decree dated 13.05.2005 passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Betul in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2004, whereby suit
for divorce was dismissed.
2. Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that appellant and
respondent were married according to Hindu rites and rituals on 07.02.1988.
After some time of marriage i.e. on 01.07.1989, respondent insisted appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
2 FA-593-2005
to live separately from other family members. Appellant bought a house at
Civil Lines from 01.06.1990 and started living there. Due to overuse of
water, owner of the house objected. Later on, in year 1996, appellant
purchased LIG house with tubewell installed, but due to repeated washing of
wall and floor, condition of the house became dilapidated. Behaviour of
respondent towards appellant and children was cruel. Respondent is having a
fetish for cleanliness. She used to wash everything in house including floor
and walls. Every articles brought from outside to house were also washed.
She used to make all family members bath at 6 AM. She refused to cook
food at home and appellant had to make arrangement for food from outside.
She left the house on 05.10.2003. Everybody was worried about her and she
was found at railway station. Appellant suffered facture when he fell down,
but respondent did not take care of appellant. He was living in his brother's
house and was looked after by other family members. Respondent suffers
from schizophrenia. Said facts were suppressed by respondent and her family
members from appellant. Aforesaid behaviour of respondent and fetish of
cleanliness of respondent amounts to cruelty to appellant. On aforesaid
grounds prayer is made for grant of decree of divorce.
3. None appeared for respondent. Respondent had defended the case
before the trial Court on grounds that house in which respondent was made
to live, was in dilapidated condition and not fit for residence. Condition of
house did not deteriorate due to washing of house by respondent. Respondent
took care of husband when he was admitted in hospital for treatment of
fracture. Respondent took care of appellant in hospital. Respondent wanted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
3 FA-593-2005
to live with appellant.
4. Appellant prayed for decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of
Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty. Counsel for appellant relied upon
the grounds, which were raised before trial Court, and additionally, it has
been stated by him that there is desertion of appellant by respondent and she
is living separately since 05.10.2003 i.e. for last 22 years, which also
amounts to cruelty. In these circumstances, there is no possibility of
reconciliation of marriage. On said additional ground also, the appellant is
entitled to get decree of divorce.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. Trial Court had arrived at finding that behaviour of appellant was
cruel towards his wife. Appellant and respondent lived together for 14 years
and they were blessed with two children from marriage. It was appellant who
used to treat wife with cruelty and harassed her. Appellant has exaggerated
the facts and was asking for divorce. Appellant failed to prove cruelty of
respondent. Therefore, it was held that appellant is not entitled to get decree
of divorce from trial Court.
7. On going through evidence available on record, appellant as well as
sons of appellant and respondent had stated about fetish of respondent. Said
fetish of respondent had made life of appellant miserable. Appellant and
respondent are living separately for more than 25 years. Apex Court in case
o f Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC
73, has held that cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or
health and includes bodily injury or causes apprehension of bodily injury.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
4 FA-593-2005
Cruelty may be physical or mental.
8. In this case, no doctor has been examined to show the fetish of
respondent. Appellant PW-1 in cross-examination had stated that
respondent/wife accompanied him during treatment to Nagpur, but after the
accident, his care was taken by family members and not by the wife. He has
also stated about fetish of respondent regarding cleanliness.
9. Similar statement has been made by PW-2 Rajesh S/o Radha Kishan
Agrawal. He has also stated that after discharge from Nagpur, appellant was
living in his house. Respondent also used to live in joint family house, but
she did not use to talk any family members. She used to beat children. He
used to take care of his brother and also used to attend him during call of
nature and bathing etc., which ought to have been done by respondent.
Respondent left the house on 05.10.2003 without telling anybody and was
found at railway station and after much request, they were able to bring her
back. Respondent did not use to take care of her children and did not make
tiffin for them. It was his wife who was making tiffin for children and used to
take care of them.
10. PW-3 Munnalal is owner of house where appellant and respondent
lived as tenants. He has stated that she used to use excessive water for
washing. It has also been stated that before filing up water, she used to wash
the area for half an hour. She did not permit family members of Niranjan
Agrawal inside the house. It was also stated that appellant had brought food
from hotel for about 8-9 months. In cross-examination also, it has been
stated that she used excessive water, which shows her fetish for cleanliness.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
5 FA-593-2005
He himself had seen her misusing water.
11. Neighbour of appellant PW-4 Diwakar S/o Nanji was examined.
He has also stated about fetish and harassment, which was caused by habits
of respondent.
12. PW-6 Rahul is son of Niranjan Agrawal, who had also stated that
he was not comfortable in living alongwith respondent. His mother used to
wash every articles including windows, doors, walls and fruits brought inside
the house. She used to peel bananas and use to wash it before giving them for
eating. Father used to bring food from Dilbahar Hotel. Father also used to
give them money to eat outside, as mother did not use to cook food. She
used to keep him standing naked for hours together after doing nature's call.
She used to get angry if they used to touch anything. She also used to abuse
him using filthy words. He also stated in cross-examination that after
treatment of his father, he used to live in his uncle and aunty's house.
Respondent used to beat him frequently.
13. Second son of appellant Govind was also examined in Court as
PW-7. He stated that mother did not use to give anything to him in tiffin and
he used to feel bad about it. He has also stated that much time was wasted for
cleaning house, over this, there was always dispute between appellant and
respondent. At times, father used to take him to railway station for answering
call of nature. Half of day's time was wasted for washing house. They used to
eat biscuits brought by father. Most of the time, they used to get lunch in
evening and food was brought by father from Dilbahar Hotel. She also used
to assault him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
6 FA-593-2005
14. Respondent in her affidavit has admitted that she wanted to keep
her house clean and used to make food after taking bath. She used to clean
kitchen and after doing cleanliness of house, she used to make food. She
used to wash articles like vegetables for making food and there is nothing
wrong in it. Appellant and family members unnecessarily used to get angry if
she does cleanliness of house and wash articles. There is nothing wrong in
cleanliness. She took care of appellant when he fell down. Beating of son in
anger once or twice is normal. It was appellant who used to treat her cruelly.
Therefore, she left the house and went to temple in Rajasthan. Respondent in
cross-examination has admitted that her husband and sons used to go to
attend the call of nature in joint family house and not in the house where they
were living on rent. She has also admitted in cross-examination that after
accident when appellant was living in Betul in joint family house, she left for
parental home. She lived in Jhunjhunu in a temple for 8 days and she was
found there on searching by parents of respondent.
15. On going through pleadings and evidence, which are available on
record, it is clear that appellant is successful in proving his case of cruel
treatment of wife towards him. Appellant, his sons and other witnesses have
stated that respondent suffers from fetish of cleanliness and she used to wash
everything. Food in the house was cooked in the evening. Children do not
get their tiffin for going to school and appellant was not taken care after his
accident and she left for her parental house. Aforesaid act shows that
respondent had treated appellant with cruelty. They are living separately
since 2003 and there is no possibility of reconciliation or resumption of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41878
7 FA-593-2005
married life.
16. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, appeal
filed by appellant/husband is allowed and decree of divorce is granted under
Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. Judgment and decree passed by
trial Court dated 13.05.2005 passed by Second Additional District Judge,
Betul (M.P.) in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2004 is set aside. Marriage between
appellant and respondent dated 07.02.1988 is dissolved.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
vkt
