order dated 12.07.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 673 of 2020, Sri
Sandeep Kumar v. Smt. Khushboo Singh, by the court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Dehradun ("the case"). By it, the petition filed by
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
3. The respondent did file a petition for divorce under the
(vi) On 11.04.2017, both the parties were
blessed with a baby boy, but thereafter, also
the status did not change; the appellant
continued doubting relationship; she would
check his call details.
(vii) On 12.06.2018, the appellant in the presence
of Siddharth Rawat and Sudhanshu
Chaudhary and others, levelled false
allegation of extra-marital relations on the
respondent.
(viii) She has been staying separate now since
17.09.2018. With these and other grounds
petition for divorce has been filed.
4. In response, the appellant has denied all the allegations
of maltreatment by her. She would submit that she has discharged
her marital obligations dutifully; but, the respondent would not take
her to Dehradun with him; he would often drop her with his parents;
the appellant noted that the respondent would make a video call in
the night with unknown person; the respondent has been in extra-
marital relationship with a woman in her department, namely,
Neelam Bisht. According to the appellant, when she questioned the
respondent, he replied that he had old relationship with Neelam Bisht
and the appellant should stay away in interfering with their
relationship. The appellant has also raised the issues of dowry and
harassment. She also records that on 02.12.2019, the respondent
had assaulted her.
5. In evidence, on behalf of the respondent five witnesses
have been examined, namely, PW 1 the respondent himself, PW 2
Siddharth Rawat, PW 3 Sudhanshu Chaudhary, PW 4 Pramod Kumar
and PW 5 Dinesh Chandra. On behalf of the appellant, three
witnesses, namely, DW 1 the appellant herself, DW 2 Sudhir Kumar
Maurya and DW 3 Vijendra Kumar have been examined. The parties
have also filed the documents in support of their contention.
6. The court below did frame two issues, namely - (i)
whether the appellant committed cruelty to the respondent, as
alleged in various paragraphs of his petition? If so, its effect? And, (ii)
Whether the appellant had deserted the respondent as alleged in
various paragraphs of the petition? If so, its effect? Finally, issue no.
3 was framed with regard to relief, if any, that may be granted.
7. Regarding issue no. 1, the court below records that it has
been proved that the appellant did commit cruelty to the respondent.
On desertion, the court found that the appellant did not desert the
respondent. Based on these findings, the petition for dissolution of
marriage has been allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned judgment and order is bad in the eyes of law; the appellant
was expelled from her matrimonial home; when the parties were
together, the appellant had given birth to a child, but no care was
taken of her. He also submits that the appellant had filed an FIR
against the respondent and other family members, in which the
police has submitted the final report, in which protest petition has
yet not been filed by the appellant. It is argued that merely on the
basis of filing of final report, decree of divorce has been granted,
which is bad.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent submits that the appellant had continuously committed
cruelty to the respondent; she has filed a false FIR of rape, etc.
against the family members of the respondent, which she has
admitted that the allegation of rape was false. It is argued that it per
se amounts to cruelty. In addition to it, it is argued that the appellant
had levelled false allegation of extra-marital relations on the
respondent; they are unsubstantiated; some photographs have been
filed in support of these allegations by the appellant, but the court
below has rightly rejected these allegations of extra-marital relations.
It is also argued that there are group photographs of co-workers,
male and female both; it in no manner suggest any extra-marital
relations; the allegation levelled by the appellant amounts to cruelty;
the court below has rightly decreed the petition of the respondent for
decree of divorce.
10. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be apt to
discuss as to what the witnesses have stated.
11. PW 1 Sandeep Kumar is the respondent. He has
reiterated the version of his petition. In addition to it, he has recorded
in para 48 of his affidavit in examination-in-chief that the appellant
had filed FIR No. 07 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
354, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
against the respondent and his family members, due to which the
family members were in depression; the police did not find any
evidence of molestation or rape.
12. PW 2 Siddharth Rawat and PW 3 Sudhanshu Chaudhary
have stated that on 12.06.2018, the appellant did level allegations of
extra-marital relations on the respondent.
13. PW 4 Pramod Kumar has simply stated in his
examination-in-chief that the appellant would quite often complaint
to his wife that she would send the respondent to jail.
14. PW 5 Dinesh Chandra submits that whenever the
appellant would go to her parental home, she would inquire about the
respondent from the wife of this witness.
15. DW 1 is the appellant herself. She has reiterated the
contentions of her objection.
16. DW 2 Sudhir Kumar Maurya has stated that on
02.12.2019, the father of the appellant told him that her in-laws are
assaulting her; thereafter, he reached Haldwani and found that the
appellant was in ICU and there were multiple injuries on her person.
17. DW 3 is the father of the appellant. He has supported the
case of the appellant.
18. The court below has quite extensively discussed the
evidence and found that the allegations of extra-marital relations that
have been levelled by the appellant against the respondent are
unsubstantiated. In addition to it, the court found that the appellant
had also levelled allegation of rape, etc. on the family members of the
respondent, which amounts to cruelty. The court also observed that
the desertion as such has not been proved. Accordingly, the decree
for dissolution of marriage has been passed.
19. The petition for divorce filed by the respondent has been
allowed on the ground of cruelty. The word "cruelty" as such has not
been defined under the provisions of the Act. It may have various
facets in multiple forms.
20. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC
511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has illustratively given some
instances, which may be considered as cruelty. In para 101 of the
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for
guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some
instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances
indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative
and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life
of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and
suffering as would not make possible for the
parties to live with each other could come
within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes
abundantly clear that situation is such that
the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked
to put up with such conduct and continue to
live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot
amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of
language, petulance of manner, indifference
and neglect may reach such a degree that it
makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of
deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in
one spouse caused by the conduct of other for
a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating
treatment calculated to torture, discommode
or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour
of one spouse actually affecting physical and
mental health of the other spouse. The
treatment complained of and the resultant
danger or apprehension must be very grave,
substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied
neglect, indifference or total departure from
the normal standard of conjugal kindness
causing injury to mental health or deriving
sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than
jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which
causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for grant
of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear
and tear of the married life which happens in
day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant
of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole
and a few isolated instances over a period of
years will not amount to cruelty. The ill
conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy
period, where the relationship has deteriorated
to an extent that because of the acts and
behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds
it extremely difficult to live with the other party
any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation
of sterilisation without medical reasons and
without the consent or knowledge of his wife
and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy
or abortion without medical reason or without
the consent or knowledge of her husband,
such an act of the spouse may lead to mental
cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
intercourse for considerable period without
there being any physical incapacity or valid
reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife
after marriage not to have child from the
marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of
continuous separation, it may fairly be
concluded that the matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to
sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary,
it shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like
situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in V. Bhagat v. D.
Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, while taking into account its earlier
decision rendered in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC
326 has held as under:
"16. 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
mater 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."
22. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5
SCC 226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 16 of the judgment,
has observed as under:-
"16. Thus, to the instances illustrative
of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh (2007)
4 SCC 511, we could add a few more. Making
unfounded indecent defamatory allegations
against the spouse or his or her relatives in
the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing
notices or news items which may have adverse
impact on the business prospect or the job of
the spouse and filing repeated false complaints
and cases in the court against the spouse
would, in the facts of a case, amount to
causing mental cruelty to the other spouse."
23. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant has
levelled false allegation of extra-marital relations against him. The
appellant in her examination has categorically stated that the
respondent had illicit relations with one Neelam Bisht, who is female
co-worker of the respondent. Neither any call details nor any material
has been filed in support of it. Some photographs were filed by the
appellant, which are 53A1/9 on the record of the trial court. The
court had considered these photographs in para 37 of the judgment
and found that based on it, extra-marital relations are not
established. In fact, admittedly, those photographs are group
photographs of many co-workers and by no stretch of imagination
may even suggest that the respondent had any relation with the girl,
who is visible in the photograph, although there are many girls in the
photograph. The appellant has written to the superior officers of the
respondent with regard to those allegations, but they were all
unsubstantiated. This unsubstantiated allegation of extra-marital
relations levelled by the appellant in itself amounts to cruelty, which
she has committed on the respondent.
24. It is the positive case of the respondent that the appellant
did lodge a false FIR of rape, etc. against him and his family
members. This is so stated in para 48 of his affidavit given in
examination-in-chief. The appellant as DW1 has been questioned
about it. She has admitted it in paras 49, 52 and 53 of her cross-
examination recorded on 20.12.2023. The appellant has admitted
that she has levelled allegations of rape against the brother and the
father of the respondent. In para 52 of her cross-examination, she
tells that she does not know whether the police has found these
allegations false. But, in para 53, she admits that the father of the
appellant did not ever attempt to rape her. The fact remains that the
appellant had lodged an FIR against the respondent and his family
members under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 376 IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. These are serious
issues. It definitely amounts to cruelty, as has been held by the court
below in para 44 and 45 of the impugned judgment.
25. Having considered the testimony of all the witnesses and
other material on record, we are of the view that, in fact, the court
below has rightly concluded that the appellant had committed cruelty
to the respondent and has rightly decreed the petition of the
respondent herein for dissolution of marriage between the parties,
and as such the judgment and order passed in the case does not
warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the first appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
26. The first appeal is dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J)
03.12.2025 03.12.2025
Avneet/
