Smt. Sanjya Devi W/O Ramesh Chand D/O Shri Hemaram Vs Ramesh Chand Son of Shri Arjun Lal

[2025:RJ-JP:25606-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1574/2021

Smt. Sanjya Devi W/o Ramesh Chand D/o Shri Hemaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bagawas, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal District Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramesh Chand Son Of Shri Arjun Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Tan Ki Dhani, Manda Bhopawas, Tehsil And District Jaipur Raj.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Gadwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Disania

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

11/07/2025

¶13

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021, whereby application under Section 13 filed by the appellant-wife (hereinafter to be referred as 'wife') has been dismissed.

¶14

Material facts which are relevant to the dispute involved in the instant appeal are that by leveling the allegation of improper and cruel behaviour of respondent-husband (hereinafter to be referred as 'husband'), the wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the Court below, in which it was also alleged that the husband was habitual of consuming liquor and used to indulge in unnecessary fights with the wife and always

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:25606-DB]

¶16

[CMA-1574/2021]

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

addressed her with abusive language. He was of skeptical nature and passed on remarks with regard to character assassination against the wife. It was also alleged in the application that the husband and his family members used to harass and victimize the wife both physically and mentally for demand of dowry. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home after giving severe beatings on 01.06.2015 and since then she has been residing at her maternal home. Hence, she prayed for grant of decree of divorce. 3. On receiving the notice of the application, the husband filed consenting reply mentioning therein that in case, the Court below passes the decree of divorce then looking to the future of both the parties the husband has no objection whatsoever. 4. The court below framed four issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. On account of non-appearance of the husband, exparte proceedings were drawn on 03.03.2021. The wife produced the evidence in support of her case. She gave her own testimony as AW-1 and also got examined AW-2 Hemaram. 5. Ex-parte arguments of the wife were heard by the Court below, however, the application was rejected vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that although the husband has expressly agreed for granting decree of divorce, yet only on account of hyper-technical reasons given by the Court below, her application for grant of decree of divorce has been rejected. The judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021 is totally against the facts of the case, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶19

[2025:RJ-JP:25606-DB]

¶20

[CMA-1574/2021]

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the Court below have also ignored the significant fact that the husband did not appear for leading evidence and thus the evidence led by the appellant-wife remained uncontroverted, yet for no plausible cause, decree of divorce has been denied to her.

¶23

For the foregoing reasons, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and for granting decree of divorce in her favour.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband defended the judgment and decree passed by the Court below by stating that there is no infirmity and illegality in the findings given by the Court below and judgment is based on due appreciation of evidence.

¶25

We have examined the record of instant matter and also carefully heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

It is a matter of record that in reply to the application, the husband has specifically given his no objection with regard to passing decree of divorce. The relevant portion of reply to the application is being quoted hereunder:

¶27

14-;g fd vizkFkhZ vkt Hkh izkFkhZ;k dks vius lkFk j[kus ds fy, rS;kj gS vxj izkFkhZ;k vius oSpkfjd erHksn Hkwy dj 'kkafriwoZd vizkFkhZ ds lkFk viuk oSokfgd thou fuoZgu djuk pkgrh gS rks vizkFkhZ mldks j[kus ds fy, rS;kj gS fQj izkFkhZ;k o vizkFkhZ ds thou o Hkfo"; dks ns[krs gq;s vxj ekU; U;k;ky; fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh ikfjr djs rks blesa vizkFkhZ dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA

¶28

It is also a matter of record that the husband neither appeared before the Court below to cross-examine the witnesses

¶29

[2025:RJ-JP:25606-DB]

¶30

[CMA-1574/2021]

¶31

(4 of 5)

¶32

produced on behalf of wife, nor did he adduce his own evidence in defence. His conduct before the Court below would also make it clear that the husband had no objection with regard to grant of decree of divorce. It is also a matter of fact revealing from the record that the wife and husband have been living separately since 01.06.2015 for at least 10 years and there has been no cohabitation between them during this period.

¶33

We have examined the findings given by the learned Court below, in which although the Court below has taken note of the fact that the husband has expressed his no objection with regard to grant of decree of divorce, yet, such ‘no objection’ or consent was not treated as sufficient by the Court below for granting decree of divorce, only for the reason that the application which was being considered by the Court below was under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 and not under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955. We find that the reason assigned by the Court below is totally irrational and illogical. It is not always necessary to examine the matrimonial cases with the strict legal and technical angle. The consent and ‘no objection’ given by the husband in his reply to the application under Section 13 was sufficient enough for the Court below to grant decree of divorce and denial thereof is evidently causing failure of justice to the wife.

¶34

There was nothing on record to infer an assumption by the Court below that there has been collusion between the parties. No material whatsoever has been referred by the Court below in impugned judgment dated 15.07.2021 to draw such an assumption of collusion between the parties. We hold that such

¶35

(5 of 5)

¶36

[2025:RJ-JP:25606-DB]

¶37

[CMA-1574/2021]

¶38

findings with regard to collusion between the parties has been arrived at by the Court below in quite baseless and unfounded manner and is hereby quashed.

¶39

For the reasons mentioned in above, we hold that the findings given by the Court below over Issues No. 1 to 4 are perverse and liable to be set aside.

¶40

In the light of above analysis, we find that the wife is entitled for decree of divorce. Hence, the judgment dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Court below is hereby quashed and set aside. The marriage solemnized between the wife and husband on 29.06.2007 is hereby dissolved.

¶41

Office is directed to draw decree of divorce accordingly.

¶42

Record of the trial Court be sent back.

¶43

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶44

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶45

Neeru/38

Smt. Sanjya Devi W/O Ramesh Chand D/O Shri Hemaram v. Ramesh Chand Son of Shri Arjun Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sanjya Devi W/O Ramesh Chand D/O Shri Hemaram v. Ramesh Chand Son of Shri Arjun Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Jain, S/O Shri Harak Chand Jain Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Rajasthan

Shiv Kumar Meena S/O Shri Kesharia Lal Meena Vs Union of India

Kaduram Meena S/O Shri Chhota Ram Vs Commissioner

The State of Rajasthan Vs Shrawan Kumar Meena S/O Mangej Meena

The State of Rajasthan Vs Girraj Prasad Meena S/O Badri Prasad Meena

The State of Rajasthan Vs Hansraj Jat S/O Shriram Jat