The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissed the First Appeal filed by the Jitendra Jani (the appellant) under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge II of the Family Court of Jabalpur dismissing the petition under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce. The Family Court had dismissed the petition holding that the appellant failed to establish cruelty or desertion, and the High Court affirmed this finding. The appellant and respondent then tied the knot on 14.05.2007 as per the Hindu rites at Jabalpur, and out of their wedlock, two sons were born on 15.08.2009 and 12.01.2019 respectively.
The appellant averred that marital relations between him and respondent were strained from the very beginning, alleging that the respondent was unwilling to reside with his in-laws, became disdainful to the appellant and his parents, started disputes with them on minor issues, even refusing to wearing the mangalsutra and applying bindi, showing aversion to observe the traditions and rituals of her in-law’s family. The appellant further alleged that the respondent used to visit her parental home for months together without giving prior intimation to the appellant, and even threatened to die by suicide and fallaciously implicate him and his family by lodging false complaints. The appellant contended that he always cared and fulfilled the needs of respondent and their children but claimed that despite all the efforts, her cruel behaviour never ceased and marital discord and quarrels over trivial matters continued. The respondent ultimately refused to reside with the husband and left the matrimonial home with both their children and her belongings on 28.03.2024.
The Court observed that as per the averments of the petition, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 28.03.2024 and the petition was filed on 01.07.2024 mapping a timeline of just 3 months which clearly fell short for the grounds of desertion. Therefore, the Court held that the Ld. Family Court committed no error in recording the finding that the ground of desertion is not made out. The Court by relying on Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (AIR 2006 SC 1675) observed that the concept of cruelty under the Act refers to conduct of such a nature that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. it was held by the Division Bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and Ramkumar Choubey that unrebutted evidence on record did not establish cruelty as a ground for divorce. Reliance was placed on Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur and Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane to reiterate that trivial quarrels do not amount to cruelty and the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the same.
Conclusively, the MP High Court held the opinion that the Ld. Family Court committed no error in holding that the appellant failed to establish cruelty. It was further noted that no ground for divorce under the Act was proved against the respondent, and therefore, the dismissal of the petition by the trial court was justified.As no ground for divorce was proved, against the respondent, the Trial Court committed no error in dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the appellant and therefore the first appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed.
Cases relied on:
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675
Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur, 2010 AIRSCW 6160
Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534
Appearances:
Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate for the appellant
None for the respondent
