In an appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, aggrieved by a judgment and decree dated 20-12-2023 whereby an application filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), was allowed, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Khot dismissed the appeal while holding that there was no perversity in the impugned judgment, and that it required no interference.

The husband filed the Section 13 application seeking divorce against the wife (appellant) on 21-03-2022. The parties got married on 18-04-2016, and as alleged, after two years of marriage, the wife deliberately implicated the husband and his family members in false and fabricated cases. After failed attempts to bring his wife back home, the husband sent her a legal notice, which was returned unserved. Thereafter, the husband filed the said application.

In her written statement, the wife asserted that her father-in-law harboured evil intentions toward her and that she had informed her husband of the same, but he asked her to obey his father’s instructions. It was contended that upon objection, the husband and his family members began demanding dowry, leading to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 354 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the husband.

The wife argued that even though she had been granted maintenance, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- was due towards the arrears of maintenance. However, the divorce decree was granted in the husband’s favour. Hence, the present appeal was filed.

The Court noted that the impugned judgment recorded that the incident dated 02-11-2017, alleged by the wife against her father-in-law, was improbable, as the wife had already left her matrimonial home on 04-08-2017. It was also noted that the wife did not complain about the incident for a considerable period, which created serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The judgment mentioned that the wife had been living separately since 14-08-2017 and that she was not willing to live with her husband, which led to the holding that she had deserted her husband beyond the statutory period and had treated him with cruelty.

The Court found no perversity in the impugned judgment and stated that it had been rightly observed that the allegations by the wife regarding the alleged incident were improbable. The Court found it evident that the wife initiated criminal proceedings against the husband and his family members and had expressed her unwillingness to resume matrimonial cohabitation with the respondent, thereby establishing desertion.

The Court found that the allegation against the father-in-law of outraging the modesty of the wife was not established and stated that it was a character assassination that maligned the person’s image and reputation. The Court stated that these findings were independent of the criminal trial and observed that the same would not affect the trial.

Lastly, while dismissing the appeal, the Court affirmed the impugned judgment while holding that it required no interference.

Appearances:

For Appellant – Mr. Shashank Pandey

For Respondent – Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Mr. Pushpenndra Kumar Verma