Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devki @ Anita vs Ramcharan @ Charan Singh on 12 February, 2026
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
FIRST APPEAL No.783 of 2021
(DEVKI @ ANITA
Vs.
RAMCHARAN @ CHARAN SINGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.K. Shukla and Shri Bhavesh Jha - Advocate for
respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 02.02.2026
Delivered on : 12.02.2026
JUDGMENT
Per: ANIL VERMA J.
Appellant/wife has preferred this first appeal under Section 19 of
Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by impugned judgment and
decree dated 4.10.2021 passed by First District Judge, Ganjbasoda,
District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCS HM No.1/2017, whereby
respondent/husband’s petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (in short HMA) for grant of divorce on the ground of
cruelty has been allowed and decree of divorce has been passed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
2. Admitted facts of the case are that marriage of appellant with
respondent was solemnized on 18.5.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals
and they blessed with a child Ansh, who is now living with appellant. It
is also admitted fact that appellant/wife has lodged a FIR at Police
Station Nateran, District Vidisha on 15.11.2017 and on the basis of said
FIR, offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC and under Sections
3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered against the
respondent/husband and his family members and a criminal case is
pending against the respondent before the Court of JMFC, Ganjbasoda.
Earlier the respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA
against the appellant, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Brief facts of the case of the respondent/husband before the Trial
Court are that after marriage the appellant/wife was continuously
pressurizing him for shifting to some big city and used to close the doors
and threatened that she will commit suicide and also threatened him that
she will falsely implicate his entire family in a dowry case.
Appellant/wife also left the matrimonial house voluntarily on 17.9.2014
with the ornament worth Rs.12,00,000/- and despite repeated efforts, she
was not ready to live with him. Thereafter, respondent has filed a
petition under Section 9 of HMA before the Court of Additional District
Judge, Ganjbasoda and the Case No.HMA 124A/2014 has been
registered. Thereafter they blessed with a child. When the respondent
along with his father went to the hospital to see his new born baby, then
the appellant and his brothers committed marpeet and misbehaved with
them. On 5.10.2015, appellant was ready to live with respondent.
Thereafter the petition under Section 9 of HMA has been dismissed in
absence of both the parties, but after one year on 23.12.2016 appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
along with her brothers and other persons came to the house of
respondent and committed marpeet with him. Respondent sustained
certain injuries and got admitted in the hospital. Family members of the
appellant continuously misbehaved with the respondent and also
threatened for life, thereafter false case has been lodged against him for
demand of dowry and cruelty. Appellant was living separately in her
parental house without any sufficient reason. In these circumstances,
opportunity of further cohabitation became impracticable and
unsustainable. Appellant has committed cruelty with him, therefore,
respondent has filed this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
4. Appellant/wife before the Trial Court denied all these allegations
by submitting in her reply that after marriage, she was harassed by her
husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and
they used to commit marpeet with her. Thereafter she lodged an FIR
against the respondent and his family members at Police Station
Nateran. She was always ready to live with her husband, but the
respondent and his family members did not allow her to enter into their
house. Divorce petition has been filed on frivolous grounds. Hence,
prayed for its dismissal.
5. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court
framed certain issues and after recording and appreciating the evidence
of both the parties, allowed the divorce petition filed by the respondent
on the ground of cruelty. Being aggrieved by aforesaid, appellant has
preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that after marriage
the appellant had been performing her matrimonial duties and due to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
their wedlock, she gave birth to one son, namely Ansh, who is presently
living with the appellant. Leaned Trial Court without considering the
facts and circumstances of the case allowed the petition filed by the
respondent without considering the prayer for permanent alimony. Mere
assertion cannot prove the grounds for grant of decree of divorce.
Appellant is in a situation of hand to mouth and is also unable to
maintain her son. The conduct of the respondent can be considered that
he has never cared about his son and never tried to maintain the
appellant and her son. Hence, it is prayed that impugned judgment and
decree be set aside and the petition for divorce filed by the respondent
deserves to be dismissed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposed
the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the
appellant/wife has committed cruelty with him and his family members
and without any sufficient reason, she is living separately with him since
last more than eight years. Hence, his appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Both the parties heard and perused the entire record with due care.
9. The pivotal question for consideration in the present appeal is that
whether after solemnization the marriage, respondent was subjected to
mental and physical cruelty by the appellant/wife in the light of
provisions enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act or not ?
10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane
Vs. Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 elaborately
discussed the concept of “mental cruelty”. The relevant extract of the
said judgment is reproduced as under:-
”The question whether the misconduct complained
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895FA NO.783-2021
of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce
purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon
the particular person complaining of the acts. The
question is not whether the conduct would be cruel
to a reasonable person or a person of average or
normal sensibilities, but whether it would have
that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which
may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by
another, and what may not be cruel to an
individual under one set of circumstances may be
extreme cruelty under another set of
circumstances.”(1) The Court has to deal, not with
an ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any
such exist) but with the particular man and woman
before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will
probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial
court for, even if they may not be able to drown
their differences, their ideal attitudes may help
them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and
failures. As said by Lord Reid in his speech in
Gollins v. Gollins (2) ALL ER 966
“In matrimonial cases we are not
concerned with the reasonable man, as
we are in cases of negligence. We are
dealing with this man and this woman
and the fewer a priori assumptions we
make about them the better. In cruelty
cases one can hardly ever even start with
a presumption that the parties are
reasonable people, because it is hard to
imagine any cruelty case ever arising if
both the spouses think and behave as
reasonable people.”
11. The above-said judgment of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane
(supra) still holds the field and is source of wisdom time and again in
respect of ”mental cruelty”. The aforesaid decision was referred to with
approval in the cases of Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta AIR 2002
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
SC 2582, Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, Manisha
Tyagi Vs. Deepak Kumar (2020) 4 SCC 339, Vishwanath Agrawal
Vs. Sarla Viswanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 and U. Sree Vs. U.
Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114.
12. Now, examining the case at the touchstone of principles of law
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-cited cases, suffice to say
that the evidence led by appellant-wife clearly demonstrates that after
solemnizing the marriage between both the parties in the year 2013, the
appellant lived with her husband-respondent for a shorter period of time
about one year and most of time, she has lived at her parental home and
left house of husband in the year 2015 and without any reason did not
return back even after filing the petition under Section 9 of HMA by the
respondent. Although the appellant herself admits in her cross-
examination that petition under Section 9 of HMA was dismissed due to
the factum of compromise between both the parties but it shows that
respondent/husband was willing to bring the appellant to save his
matrimonial relationship. Thereafter, several opportunities have been
given to the appellant for returning home, but she was not willing to live
with her husband, although learned counsel for the appellant contended
that appellant was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her
husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and
they used to commit marpeet. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR against
them and criminal case under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC is pending
against the respondent and his family members, but from perusal of
other documents available on record it appears that brothers and other
family members of appellant committed marpeet with the
respondent/husband. Accordingly, offence under Sections 293, 323, 506
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
(Part-II) of IPC has been registered as per order dated 25.06.2018
(Annexure P/11) passed by JMFC, Ganjbasoda.
13. On perusal of FIR Ex.P/12, it appears that offence under Sections
498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has
been registered against the respondent on 15.11.2017 but prior
registration of said offence, respondent has filed a complaint case Ex.P/8
before JMFC, Ganjbasoda on 2.8.2017. It clearly indicate that appellant
has leveled false and frivolous allegation of cruelty and harassment
against the respondent and his family members. Conduct of appellant
also come in the purview of mental cruelty as discussed by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane (supra).
14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh
(2007) 4 SCC 511 has also considered the instances of cruelty as well as
the aspects of irretrievable breakdown and held that same can be made a
ground for divorce. Further, in the case of Shri Rakesh Raman vs. Smt.
Kavita 2023 Live Law (SC) 353, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that
long separation, in absence of cohabitation and complete breakdown of
all meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between the husband and
wife, has to be read as “cruelty” under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the HM Act.
15. On the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, it appears
that marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 18.5.2013 and one
child Ansh has born out from their wedlock and after marriage most of
the period the appellant deserted her husband and left the house of
husband without any sufficient reason and avoided to come back her
husband’s home. It is not the first incident, but thereafter on repeated
occasions quarrel has been made between both the families and they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
have made complaint against each other. The entire conduct of
appellant/wife is sufficient to proof that she does not want to live with
her husband/respondent and she wants to live with her husband only
with the condition that if the respondent keeps her in any big city. The
motive of appellant is apparent that she does not want to live with her
husband and in-laws and her allegations regarding demand of dowry and
cruelty do not appear to be trustworthy.
16. Therefore, in the backdrop of fact that marriage between them did
not last for more than four years and both of them have been living
separately for the last over eight years, apparently marriage is
irretrievable, as love is lost and emotions are dried up, as evidence from
demeanour of the parties out of their wedlock there is one child. There is
no possibility of any reconciliation between the parties. There is no hope
about cohabitation between them in future. Matrimonial bond has been
completely ruptured beyond repair. It has become impossible to reunite
parties. Marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond
salvation.
17. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that respondent has been subjected to mental and physical
cruelty in the hands of his wife/appellant and she was adamant to live on
her own terms and conditions. Therefore, findings given by the Trial
Court is based upon the cogent evidence available on record and
respondent is rightly deserves for decree of divorce on the ground of
cruelty and we found no ground to interfere with the decree of
dissolution of marriage.
18. So far as the question of grant of one-time settlement as full and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4895
FA NO.783-2021
final settlement is concerned, in the matrimonial cases, the Court has to
ascertain the financial capacity/status of parties depending on source of
income and expenditure for determining amount of
maintenance/permanent alimony/full and final settlement/one-time
settlement, this Court left with no other option, but to think it just and
proper to allow one-time settlement in the shape of full and final
settlement to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of appellant, which is
payable to the appellant by the respondent by way of Demand Draft or
any other mode within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment. Subject to aforesaid full and final settlement/one-
time settlement granted in favour of the appellant, a decree of divorce be
drawn accordingly.
19. Accordingly, the instant first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed
and under the said provisions of Section 25 of HMA as one-time full and
final settlement as permanent alimony, the respondent is directed to pay
an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs Only) through Bank Draft
to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 2/12/2026
6:36:14 PM