SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Jyotsana vs Ravi Khatwal on 12 March, 2018

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1915 / 2016
Smt. Jyotsana W/o Shri Ravi Khatwal (Salvi) D/o Dr.Chunni Lal
Rahatwal (Salvi), by caste Salvi, resident of 4-E, Staff Quarter,
Residency Campus, Madhuban, Udaipur.

Ravi Khatwal S/o late Shri Bheru Lal Khatwal, by caste Salvi,
resident of 477, Kumharwada, Danta Bheru, Gogunda Ki Haveli,

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ankit Choudhary for Mr.R.S.Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manish Vyas


1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petition seeking annulment of the marriage has been allowed

holding that the respondent has successfully established mental

cruelty inflicted upon him by the appellant and additionally that

without any reasonable cause the appellant abandoned the

matrimonial consortium between the couple two years preceding

to the filing of the petition.

3. Case pleaded by the respondent was that the marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 16.2.2009 as per Hindu

custom. Immediately after marriage the appellant raised a

demand that the residential house which was in the name of the

respondent’s mother be transferred in her name. That on trivial
(2 of 4)

issues the appellant would use abusive language and threaten that

she would entangle the respondent by filing false cases. That

without informing him or his mother the appellant would go to the

house of her parents. That she was constantly chatting with males

on the internet. That he received threatening messages. That the

appellant left the matrimonial house and when she did not return

he served a notice to which she replied on 2.4.2011 refusing to

return and live with him. Since the appellant did not return the

respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 to which the appellant filed a written statement that she

would not reside with him and thus he withdrew the petition. That

the appellant lodged a complaint with the police pursuant whereof

FIR for offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC was

registered. After investigation the police filed a closure report.

Protest petition filed by the appellant was rejected and the closure

report was accepted. That another false FIR for offences

punishable under Section 323/341 IPC was got registered by the

appellant at the instance of her brother.

4. In the written statement filed the appellant denied the

assertions made against her and pleaded that the cause for her to

withdraw from the matrimonial house was she being troubled for

dowry in sum of ₹5 lacs.

5. At the trial the respondent appeared as his witness and

examined his mother as AW2. The appellant examined herself as

her witness and her father as NAW2.

6. Holding that the respondent could not prove that the

appellant ever demanded that house in his mother’s name be
(3 of 4)

transferred to her and could not prove that the appellant was in

communication on the internet with males and no threat was ever

extended to him, findings have been returned in favour of the

respondent on the reasoning that his attempt that the appellant

should live with him failed when he sought restitution of conjugal

rights. The acts of cruelty in the form of a false complaint for

dowry harassment proved by the fact that inspite of the protest

petition filed by the appellant the learned Magistrate accepted the

closure report establishes mental cruelty.

7. The learned trial Judge has also accepted the version of the

respondent that the appellant would pick up quarrel on some

issues. At the trial it surfaced that the appellant continued her

education post marriage and obtained a Ph.D. degree.

8. In matrimonial cases there is a tendency of the parties to

exaggerate their respective versions and from the testimony of

the parties and their witnesses we find that more often than not

the exaggerated versions are deposed to by way of examination-

in-chief, as in the instant case where cross-examination and

examination-in-chief is weak the only material before the Court is

to probablize the true versions.

9. That the appellant was pursuing her academic studies and

completed Ph.D. post marriage is proved. The appellant is an

empowered woman. At the trial she or her mother could not prove

dowry demands and indeed FIR lodged by the appellant for

offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC resulted in a

closure report.

(4 of 4)

10. The tendency of the appellant to somehow or the other nail

the respondent is evinced by an order dated 25 th May, 2017

passed in the appeal which records that the appellant made a

grievance that her original academic testimonials are lying with

the respondent, a fact which on the face of it is false for the

reason the appellant is gainfully employed as an Assistant

Professor under Vidhya Bhawan College, Udaipur which is attached

with the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. Obviously the

appellant has all her degrees and testimonials with her and she

made the statement in Court which finds a reflection in the order

dated 25.5.2017 just to harass the respondent.

11. The appellant has thus not proved a reasonable cause to

withdraw from the consortium for the reason the only ground

pleaded by her to withdraw from the consortium was dowry

harassment which she could not prove. Thus in any case the

decree of divorce on the second issue must stand.

12. As regards the issue of cruelty, lodging false complaints

against her in-laws which resulted in police investigations have

been held to be acts of cruelty.

13. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned decision dated


14. The appeal is dismissed.



Leave a Reply

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

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