HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
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
(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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.