[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dileep Chouhan vs Boriwal Pooja Kumari ... on 23 January, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:4359-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2565/2024
Dileep Chouhan S/o Shri Heeralal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
131, Middle School, Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Gogunda, Tehsil
Gogunda, District Udaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Boriwal Pooja Kumari D/o Ramprasad Chouhan, W/o Shri Dileep
Chouhan, R/o 131, Middle School, Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Gogunda,
Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur. Presently Gilund Road,
Relmagra, Tehsil Relmagra, District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Raveena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
23/01/2026
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Rajsamand in
Civil Misc Case No. 24/2023 (CIS No.24/2023) whereby the
application filed on behalf of the respondent-wife under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed and a decree of
divorce was granted.
2. Briefly speaking, The respondent-wife filed a petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the
ground of cruelty, stating that the marriage with the appellant-
husband was solemnized on 29.06.2012. She alleged that despite
limited stay at the matrimonial home due to her engineering and
later M.Tech studies, she was subjected to physical and mental
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:30:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4359-DB] (2of 4) [CMA-2565/2024]
cruelty, character assassination, alcoholism, and constant
suspicion by the appellant.
2.1. She further alleged repeated dowry demands of ₹5,00,000/-,
threats to discontinue her studies, physical violence, and
harassment with the support of her in-laws. After the birth of a
daughter in 2016, she and the child were allegedly ill-treated for
giving birth to a female child. Incidents of assault, expulsion from
the matrimonial home, forcible separation from the child, and
public assault at her workplace in 2021 were also alleged. Owing
to continuous cruelty, she filed the divorce petition on 17.12.2022.
2.3. The appellant-husband denied all allegations, claimed that
the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily, asserted
that no dowry was demanded, and expressed willingness to
resume cohabitation. He filed an application under Section 9 of the
Act for restitution of conjugal rights, alleged misuse of criminal
proceedings by the respondent, and accused her of intending to
marry another person.
2.4. The Family Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the
respondent and her witnesses, and proceeded ex-parte against
the appellant on 02.03.2024. By judgment dated 06.03.2024, the
Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the
respondent. Aggrieved by the ex-parte decree, the appellant-
husband has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsels for respective parties and
perused the material available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant' contends that the ex-
parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 06.03.2024 passed by
the Family Court, Rajsamand, is contrary to the facts on record
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:30:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4359-DB] (3of 4) [CMA-2565/2024]
and settled principles of law. It is argued that the Family Court
granted the decree mechanically, without proper judicial scrutiny
as required under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and
failed to correctly appreciate the evidence.
4.1. It is further submitted that the findings on Issues Nos. 1 and
2 are erroneous, as the allegations of cruelty were not supported
by cogent or reliable evidence. The Family Court is alleged to have
merely reproduced the respondent's pleadings, ignored the
appellant's defence and written statement, and failed to consider
the cross-examination of the respondent, leading to perverse and
arbitrary conclusions.
4.2. She also argues that cruelty must be clearly and conclusively
proved, and vague or unsubstantiated allegations do not satisfy
the legal standard. The respondent allegedly failed to discharge
the burden of proof. The plea of desertion or non-cohabitation
since July 2018 is also challenged as unsupported by evidence,
especially since the divorce petition was filed in 2022.
4.3. Lastly, it is contended that the Family Court violated
principles of natural justice by proceeding ex parte and by not
affording the appellant adequate opportunity to be heard or to
lead evidence. Such procedural lapses, including disregard of the
statutory rules on burden of proof, are stated to have caused
serious prejudice and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
5. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the impugned
judgment and decree dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned
Family Court, it is evident that this is not a case where the
appellant-husband inadvertently failed to appear before the
Family Court. Rather, the record reflects a conscious and
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:30:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4359-DB] (4of 4) [CMA-2565/2024]
deliberate decision on his part to abandon the proceedings. After
due service, the appellant not only engaged counsel but also
appeared in the proceedings and filed his reply. However, when
the matter reached the stage of leading evidence, he chose not to
pursue his case. Whether this decision was due to lack of evidence
or for any other reason, including acquiescence to the dissolution
of marriage, remains unclear.
6. Be that as it may, on examination of the impugned judgment,
we find no legal infirmity either on facts or in law. Even during the
course of arguments, no illegality or perversity has been pointed
out that would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. Arguments to the contrary as addressed by
the learned counsel for the appellant and noted herein above are
rejected.
7. In the parting we may note that as regards the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant concerning denial of visitation
rights to the minor daughter born out of the wedlock, it is clarified
that such rights are kept open and may be adjudicated upon if the
appellant initiates appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
8. The instant appeal stands dismissed with observations, as
above.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
24-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:30:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
