SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Naresh Kumar vs Neena @ Meena Devi on 4 September, 2019


FAO-4546-2017 (OM)
Decided on : 04.09.2019

Naresh Kumar
. . . Appellant(s)
Neena @ Meena Devi
. . . Respondent(s)


Argued by: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate
for the appellant(s).

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
for the respondent(s).


The instant appeal has been preferred by the husband – Naresh

Kumar, whereby, he has impugned the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2017,

passed by the Ld. District Judge (Family Court), Ambala (in short ‘Ld. Family

Court’) vide which the petition filed by him, under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking dissolution of his

marriage with the respondent-wife/Meena on the grounds of cruelty and desertion

was dismissed.

A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as pleaded in the

petition filed by the appellant-husband (petitioner therein) before the Ld. Family

Court, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22 nd

April, 2002 at Ambala, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was

born on 07th February, 2003, out of the wedlock. It was pleaded that even though

the wife was treated with love and affection by the appellant-husband and his

parents, yet she would frequently quarrel and misbehave with them on trivial

1 of 5
08-09-2019 08:10:26 :::
FAO-4546-2017 (OM) -2-

matters; she would often leave her matrimonial home and only return with the

intervention of relatives. In December 2002, the wife went to her paternal home

for the delivery of their child. After the delivery of the child, the appellant-

husband and his mother went to see the child along with customary sweets and

clothes. However, when the appellant-husband and his mother went to the

parental home of the wife in March 2003, to bring her back to the matrimonial

home after the birth of the daughter, she expressed her un-willingness to return

and it was only after a great deal of persuasion, she reluctantly accompanied the

appellant-husband to her matrimonial home. However, her attitude allegedly

remained the same, as before and within a month of her stay in the matrimonial

home, she returned to her parental home in April 2003. She was persuaded many

a times to return to her matrimonial home, but to no avail. Her parents also

refused to send her back with the husband to her matrimonial home. As the wife

represented to the Army Headquarters for maintenance, she was granted ` 2000/-

per month as maintenance from the salary of the appellant-husband, who is an

army personnel, vide order passed in January 2005. All efforts made by the

appellant-husband and his family with the help of Panchayats as well as the Army

officials to bring about a reconciliation with the wife ended in a futile exercise.

As a result of which, maintenance granted to her by the Army Authorities was

discontinued. The wife thereafter, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

against the appellant-husband, wherein, she and her minor daughter were granted

maintenance in the sum of ` 6000/- per month i.e. ` 3000/- each, respectively. The

appellant-husband submitted that he had been regularly paying the said

maintenance to the wife and had also filed a petition for the custody of their minor

daughter under the provisions of the Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890. The

appellant-husband pleaded that the wife had subjected him to immense cruelty for

2 of 5
08-09-2019 08:10:27 :::
FAO-4546-2017 (OM) -3-

the last almost 11 years, ever since she deserted him in April 2003. In the

aforementioned background, he pleaded before the Ld. Family Court that his

marriage with the respondent-wife be dissolved on the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and


Per contra, the respondent-wife (respondent therein) refuted and

denied the allegations of the appellant-husband, in her written statement filed

before the Ld. Family Court. She inter alia submitted that it was, in fact, the

husband, who had meted out cruelty to her and had been harassing her with

demands of dowry. She submitted that it was the husband, who had turned her out

from her matrimonial home and compelled her to reside with her parents. She

alleged that the appellant-husband did not even come to see his new born child

and had even refused to maintain the respondent-wife and the child. It was only

on account of the representations made by her to the Army Headquarters to trace

out her husband that she was granted the said maintenance of ` 2000/- per month.

She further submitted that when she was called in pursuance to her representations

to the Army Headquarters at Pathankot, the husband was asked to get a family

quarter allotted to himself, but he refused the same. She submitted that the

maintenance of ` 2000/-, which had been granted to her by the Army Authorities

was discontinued after a compromise was effected between her and husband in

June 2005, as a result of which she was taken back to her matrimonial home at

Village Pai, Kaithal. The husband never ever visited his parental home at Village

Pai during that time, until one day in May 2010, when he finally showed up and

beat her up mercilessly. He, thereafter, turned her along with the child out of the

matrimonial home. She also submitted that the husband did not pay the

maintenance granted to her and her child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. regularly,

whereupon, she had to file execution petitions for recovery thereof.

3 of 5
08-09-2019 08:10:27 :::
FAO-4546-2017 (OM) -4-

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by

the Ld. Court below:-

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the

grounds as alleged ? OPP

2. Relief.”

Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective

stands. The appellant-husband appeared as PW1 and examined his cousin Anil

Kumar as PW2. On the other hand, respondent-wife examined as many as three

witnesses. She has appeared as RW1 and examined Amrit Lal and Jagdish as

RW2 RW3, respectively.

After analyzing the evidence led by the parties and also the material

on record, the Ld. Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the husband under

Section 13 of the Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone

through the evidence and other material on record.

It may be noticed that the parties during the arguments reiterated their

earlier versions and maintained their respective stands as taken before the Ld.

Court below. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the parties were referred

to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, but the same proved to be

a futile exercise.

Adverting to the case in hand, the appellant-husband is seeking

dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife on the grounds of ‘cruelty’

and ‘desertion’. The instances of cruelty as alleged by the husband do not indicate

any such serious issues between the parties, which would have caused acute agony

and mental torture to the appellant-husband. In fact, it is clearly discernible that

the husband has been trying to weave excuses to end his marriage with the wife.

4 of 5
08-09-2019 08:10:27 :::
FAO-4546-2017 (OM) -5-

As far as the allegation of desertion against the respondent-wife is

concerned, the same is bereft of any merit. It is discernible from the evidence led

before the Ld. Family Court that the respondent-wife was compelled due to the

misdeeds of the appellant-husband to stay away from him, for which he cannot be

allowed to take advantage and expect this Court to perpetuate the same. It is his

own admitted case that he did not even apply for family accommodation during his

posting at family stations. In this background, it is evident that there was

intentional and willful desertion on his part. In fact, his conduct of deserting his

wife along with their daughter without any reasonable cause would amount to

mental cruelty on the wife. Even the allegations of cruelty against the wife cannot

by any stretch of imagination be said to be so serious so as to leave him with no

other option but to take extreme step of seeking dissolution of their marriage.

Taking an over all perspective of the matter, it is the appellant-husband, who is, in

fact, guilty of matrimonial misconduct and not the other way round as alleged by


In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the

impugned judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2017, passed by the Ld. Family

below, does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the instant appeal stands



September 04, 2019

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5
08-09-2019 08:10:27 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation