Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aalokita(Seeta) vs Vikas Mishra on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
1 FA-135-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 135 of 2024
SMT. AALOKITA(SEETA)
Versus
VIKAS MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhishek Pandey - Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri
Pushpenndra Kumar Verma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Deepak Khot
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court
Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20th December,
2023 passed in RCS HM No. 27 of 2022 by the Principal Judge, Link Family
Court, District Umariya, whereby the learned court below has allowed the
application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the
respondent.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the respondent/husband has filed
an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce
against the appellant/wife bearing RCS HM 27of 2022 on 21 March 2022.2.
3 . As per the averments in the application, the marriage between the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
2 FA-135-2024
parties was solemnized on 18″ April 2016 as per Hindu rites and customs, at
village Lakhaha, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, Amarpatan, District Satna, M.P.
After completion of successful two year of marriage, as averred in the
appeal, the appellant has deliberately implicated the respondent and his
family members in false and fabricated cases on 14 Aug. 2017. The
respondent was trying to bring the appellant with him but the appellant and
her family members refused and abused the respondent. Thereafter, the
respondent sent legal notice to the appellant and the same was returned with
an endorsement that the notice is unserved as the house was locked. The
respondent has made his best efforts to restitute the conjugal relationship
with the appellant, but in vain. Consequently, when no option left with the
respondent/husband, he filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce.
4. The appellant filed her written statement denying all the allegations
made against her. In the said written statement, the appellant specifically
averred that her father-in-law had cast evil intentions upon her. The appellant
further stated that she had informed the respondent/husband about the said
conduct of his father; however, the respondent did not take the matter
seriously and, on the contrary, directed the appellant to obey the instructions
of his father. The appellant objected to such conduct, but in retaliation to her
objection, the respondent and his family members allegedly started
demanding dowry from her. Disgruntled with the said acts, the appellant
lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 354 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at
Police Station Indawar against the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
3 FA-135-2024
5 . It is further stated that although the appellant has been granted
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but a
sum of Rs. 65,500/- is due towards arrears of maintenance. In view of the
above facts and circumstances, the appellant prayed before the learned Court
below for rejection of the application filed by the respondent under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, after considering and appreciating
the evidence, statements of the witnesses, and pleadings of the rival parties,
the learned Court below allowed the application filed under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the
respondent vide judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2023 (Annexure
A/1). Hence, the present first appeal.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that court below has
erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant committed cruelty and
lodged a false and fabricated F.I.R. under Sections 354 and 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his family members. The
learned Court below failed to consider the material fact that the said criminal
case under Sections 354 and 498-A of the IPC is still pending adjudication
before the competent court. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the
allegations made in a criminal prosecution can only be held to be proved or
not proved upon the final adjudication and verdict of the competent criminal
court. However, in the present case, the learned Court below has
prejudicially concluded that the appellant lodged a false and fabricated F.I.R.
against the respondent and his family members, without awaiting or relying
upon the final outcome of the said criminal proceedings. Such a finding is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
4 FA-135-2024
premature, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside.
7 . It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to consider the
material fact that the appellant has been granted maintenance under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in a proceeding
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance is granted only when the applicant
establishes that she was subjected to cruelty or neglect. Thus, the grant of
maintenance itself indicates that the appellant had been subjected to cruelty.
8. It is further submitted that the learned Court below erred in holding
that the appellant deserted the respondent two years prior to the filing of the
application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court below
failed to consider the material fact that the appellant had left her matrimonial
home due to cruelty inflicted upon her, which subsequently led her to lodge
an F.I.R. under Sections 354 and 498-A of the IPC. Upon such submission, it
is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside.
9 . In support of his submissions, counsel for the appellant/wife has
relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rani
Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247 .
10. In rebuttal to the above submissions, counsel for the respondent
has submitted that the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of
merits and liable to be dismissed. The learned Court below has rightly
appreciated the pleadings, evidence, and testimonies of the parties and has
passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 20 December 2023 after due
consideration of the material available on record. The allegations made by
the appellant regarding cruelty and misconduct on the part of the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
5 FA-135-2024
and his family members are false, baseless, and have been levelled only to
create a defence in the matrimonial dispute. The learned Court below has
rightly observed that the conduct of the Appellant in lodging criminal
proceedings has caused mental cruelty to the respondent. The finding of the
learned Court below regarding desertion and cruelty is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference by this
Hon’ble Court. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and passed in
accordance with law. Hence, the present appeal being without merit deserves
to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court
below be affirmed.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
1 2 . The learned Court below before granting decree of divorce in
favour of the respondent/husband has appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence on record, recorded its finding from para 6 onwards and held that
the allegations made by the appellant/wife regarding the alleged incident
dated 02.11.2017 involving the father of the respondent/husband were
unreliable and improbable. The Court observed that the appellant/wife had
already left the matrimonial home on 04.08.2017 and therefore, the alleged
incident dated 02.11.2017 was improbable and could not have occurred. The
Court below further noted that the appellant/wife did not make any complaint
for the alleged incident for a considerable period and the report was lodged
only on 25.05.2018, which created serious doubt regarding the veracity of
the allegations.
13. The Court also observed that the appellant/wife failed to produce
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
6 FA-135-2024
independent evidence in support of her allegations and did not examine
material witnesses, including her father, before whom the incident was
allegedly disclosed. On the contrary, the evidence of the respondent/husband
and his witnesses remained consistent and unchallenged on material
particulars.
14. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Court below
concluded that the appellant/wife had caused mental cruelty to the
respondent/husband by getting him and his family members implicated in
criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 354 of IPC and by sending
him to the police station.
1 5 . Further, the Court held that the appellant/wife had been living
separately since 14.08.2017 and had clearly stated in her cross-examination
that she was not willing to live with the respondent/husband and desired
dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent/wife
had deserted the applicant/husband for more than the statutory period and
had treated him with cruelty.
16. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence on record,
and the findings recorded by the learned Court below, this Court finds no
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. The learned
Court below has duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has
assigned cogent and convincing reasons while arriving at the conclusion that
the appellant/wife treated the respondent/husband with cruelty and deserted
him.
17. The learned Court below has rightly observed that the allegations
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
7 FA-135-2024
made by the appellant/wife regarding the alleged incident dated 02.11.2017
are improbable and not supported by reliable evidence, particularly when it
has come on record that the appellant/wife had already left the matrimonial
home prior to the said date. The delay in lodging the complaint and the
absence of supporting evidence further weaken the credibility of the said
allegations.
18. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant/wife
initiated criminal proceedings against the respondent/husband and his family
members, which the learned Court below has rightly considered while
examining the issue of mental cruelty. Further, it is evident from the material
available on record that the appellant/wife has been living separately from
the respondent/husband since 14.08.2017 and has expressed unwillingness to
resume matrimonial cohabitation, thereby establishing the ground of
desertion.
1 9 . Although counsel for the appellant/wife has relied on the case
o f Rani Narasimha Sastry (supra), but, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the said judgment does not support the case of the
appellant/wife.
20. While dealing with the false accusation and cruelty, the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita reported in (2014) 16
SCC 34 in para 5 has held as under:-
“5. The respondent wife has admitted in her cross-examination that
she did not mention all the incidents on which her complaint is
predicated in her statement under Section 161 CrPC. It is not her
case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the
investigating officer, but that he had neglected to mention them.
This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the
criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:185338 FA-135-2024
view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was “ill
advised”. Adding thereto is the factor that the High Court had been
informed of the acquittal of the appellant husband and members of
his family. In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have
concluded that the respondent wife knowingly and intentionally
filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the
appellant and seven members of his family and that such conduct
unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(i-
a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
21. In the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja reported in (2017) 14
SCC 194, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:
“9. This Court in para 16 of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [K.
Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 : (2013) 2 SCC
(Civ) 775 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 963] has held as follows: (SCC p.
234)
“16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted
in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [Samar Ghosh v. Jaya 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.”
10. In Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi [Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010)
4 SCC 476 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 185] , this Court while dealing
with the definition of “cruelty” held as follows: (SCC pp. 480-81,
paras 19-20)
“19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under
the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In
matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean
absence of mutual respect and understanding between the
spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to
various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as
cruelty. Sometimes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may
take the form of violence, sometimes it may take a different
form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach.
Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty.
20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any
definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the
husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her
husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into
account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case
and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in
matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety–it may be
subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That
possibly explains why Lord Denning
i n Sheldon v. Sheldon [Sheldon v. Sheldon, 1966 P 62 :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
9 FA-135-2024
(1966) 2 WLR 993 (CA)] held that categories of cruelty in
matrimonial cases are never closed.”
11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty
will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the
wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her
husband, his family members and colleagues, which would
definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of
his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are
justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action
is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may
not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty
within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short
“the Act”). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently
false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct
of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse
would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations
were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging
that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed
into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on
investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the
injuries were self-inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings
were launched against the wife under Section 182 IPC.”
22. In respect of mental cruelty, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 in paras 99,
100 and 101 has held as under:
“99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound,
therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one
definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may
not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs
from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of
sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human
values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain
static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of
modern culture through print and electronic media and value
system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain
a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can
never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for
determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent
and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it
on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking
aforementioned factors in consideration.
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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1853310 FA-135-2024
“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
11 FA-135-2024
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.”
23. When facts and evidence of the present case have been marshalled,
it is found that the allegation against father-in-law of outraging modesty by
the appellant according to her own testimony is not established as appellant
herself has stated in her oral evidence that she had never returned back to her
matrimonial house after August, 2018 (which seems to be a typographical
mistake in her cross-examination) as according to her testimony, FIR was
lodged on 25.05.2018 when she returned back to her parents house, which is
also corroborated by oral evidence of respondent witnesses that appellant left
the matrimonial house in August, 2017. Contrary to said statement, she had
made allegation of Section 354 of IPC against her father-in-law of an
incident said to have been occurred on 02.11.2017, which definitely is a
character assassination and maligned the image and reputation of the person.
These findings by this Court and the court below are on the basis of evidence
led by parties which is independent to criminal trial. Thus, it is observed that
it shall not affect the trial in any manner.
24. In view of the above enunciation of law and the totality of the facts
and circumstances of the present case in hand, this Court is of the considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:18533
12 FA-135-2024
opinion that the learned Court below has properly appreciated the evidence
and has rightly granted the decree of divorce. The findings recorded by the
learned Court below are well-reasoned and do not warrant any interference
by this Court.
2 5 . The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and
decree dated 20th December, 2023 passed in RCS HM No. 27 of 2022
passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAGHVENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 18-03-2026
13:07:12