[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
2 December vs Naveen Kumar on 2 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2025:UHC:10735-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 165 of 2024
02 December, 2025
Parul and another ............Appellants
Versus
Naveen Kumar ..........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants through
Video Conferencing.
Despite sufficient service, none has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal is preferred against the
judgment and decree dated 01.08.2024, passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Original Case
No. 824 of 2023, Smt. Parul and Another vs. Shri Naveen,
whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section
13(1)(i-a) and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
("the Act"), seeking a decree of divorce and custody/child-
related reliefs, has been dismissed ("the case").
2. The office report indicates that notice was issued
to the respondent on 18.02.2025, which was duly served
upon him personally. The service report reflects that the
respondent received the notice on 19.03.2025, but despite
service, he failed to enter appearance. Consequently, on
2025:UHC:10735-DB
21.07.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that
the appeal shall proceed ex parte against the respondent.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record.
4. The case is based on an application filed under
Section 13(1)(i-a) and 26 of the Act seeking divorce on the
following grounds:-
The marriage of the appellant and respondent
was solemnized on 16.05.2010 but within one
year of marriage she was subjected to
harassment in connection with unlawful
demands for money and a car; that the
respondent is habituated to excessive
consumption of liquor; that he sold her jewellery
and consistently subjected her to mental and
physical cruelty; that he would beat and verbally
abuse her. It is further alleged that the parties
were blessed with a baby girl on 14.04.2018, who
is presently studying in school, and that after the
birth of the child the harassment intensified,
including taunts for not giving birth to a male
child and renewed demands for dowry. She
alleges that she was beaten and subjected to
various acts of cruelty. On these and other
related allegations, the petition for divorce was
instituted.
2025:UHC:10735-DB
5. In the case before the court below, notices were
issued to the respondent, however, despite due service,
respondent did not appear. Accordingly, by order dated
28.02.2024, the court proceeded ex parte against him.
6. In evidence, the petitioner filed her own
affidavit reiterating the version given in her petition. She
also adduced certain documents with regard to the school
fees of their daughter as well as the photographs of the
marriage, birth certificate, etc. However, the court below,
declined to accept the case of the appellant on the
premise that although the appellant had reiterated her
allegations in her deposition, but, she had not produced
any authentic/cogent evidence in support of her evidence
to substantiate her assertions so as to establish that the
respondent had subjected her to cruelty.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant has proved her case by
adducing her own evidence. Her affidavit in examination-
in-chief remains uncontroverted, as the respondent
neither appeared nor chose to contest the proceedings.
The appellant has not been cross-examined, therefore,
the on-oath statement given by the appellant in terms of
her affidavit submitted as in examination-in-chief
remains uncontroverted and the Court had no reason to
disbelief it. He would further submit that, in fact, in some
2025:UHC:10735-DB
proceedings, the appellant had admitted that respondent
would give up drinking and would properly maintain the
appellant.
7. The term "cruelty" has not been defined in the
Act; however, it has been interpreted in umpteen
judgments, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the
Court illustratively given a list of actions, which may be
termed as 'cruelty'. The Court observed that acute mental
pain, agony and suffering, which render it impossible for
the parties to live together, would fall within the ambit of
mental cruelty.
8. Undoubtedly, mental cruelty is a matter
concerning the state of mind, which may only be inferred
by the actions, behaviour and deeds of the parties. In the
present case, the appellant has not confined her
allegations merely to mental cruelty but has also
specifically attributed several incidents of physical abuse.
She has categorically stated in her pleadings and in her
deposition, that on 06.04.2022, she was forcibly expelled
by the respondent from her matrimonial home.
9. In her affidavit filed in examination-in-chief,
the appellant has reiterated her earlier version and has
deposed on oath that she was consistently harassed,
beaten, and subjected to torture by the respondent, who
2025:UHC:10735-DB
was habituated to excessive consumption of liquor and
had even sold her jewellery. The statements made by the
appellant on oath remain uncontroverted, as the
respondent has not appeared in the proceedings to rebut
her testimony.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of
the considered opinion that the court below had no
justification to disbelieve the uncontroverted and
consistent deposition of the appellant. Once the
appellant's testimony, duly supported by the material
placed on record, remained uncontroverted, the petition
ought to have been allowed.
11. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated
01.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dehradun, in Original Case No. 824 of 2023, Smt. Parul
and Another vs. Shri Naveen is hereby set aside. The
appeal is allowed. A decree of divorce is granted in favour
of the appellant. The marriage solemnized on 16.05.2010
between the appellant and respondent is hereby
dissolved.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
Mamta
