Smt Rekha Vs Heera Lal Sharma

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 250/2018

Smt. Rekha W/o Heera Lal Sharma D/o Ghanshyam Goswami, Vandp Pasta, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur At Present R/o Raas Bihari Mandir, Rangeeli Gali, Nandgaon, Near Nand Baba Mandir, Nandgaon, Tehsil Chhata, Distt. Mathura U.P

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Heera Lal Sharma S/o Govind Ram Sharma, R/o Vandp Pasta, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur Raj

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pallav Choudhary, Adv., for Mr. Paresh Choudhary, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Judgment

¶11

10/02/2026

¶12

This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by wife assailing decree of divorce dated 09.11.2017 passed in favour of husband on the ground of cruelty, on his petition of divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing No.73/2015 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur.

¶13

Factual matrix of the case in brief is that husband filed a divorce petition on 10.09.2014 stating inter-alia that after his marriage solemnized on 06.02.2010, he came to know that his wife is an abnormal woman because in routine days, she exposes strange and weird acts as sometime she used to go in deep thoughts and stops eating and drinking; sometime she keeps herself locked in bathroom for more than two hours and on knocking, speaks abusive and filthy words; she wears miserable

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

(2 of 10)

dress and starts clapping and laughing loudly for no good reason and one day, she climbed on the upper floor of the roof to jump to commit suicide. Husband further averred that when her abnormal behaviour and conduct was brought to notice of her father, he was told that she has been suffering with mental disorder since childhood and has been remained under medical treatment of Psychiatrist. Later on, husband also got his wife treated at the Institute of Mental Health & Hospital, Agra, but in the meanwhile, his wife got pregnant and she gave birth to a son on 31.07.2011, hence, he was hopeful that things may become normal, but she could not recuperate from her mental sickness and even thereafter, on one occasion, she grabbed her child by throat and threw him away. Husband further pleaded that lastly, she went at her parents home to attend marriage of her sister on 17.04.2014 and did not return back thereafter and since then, she is continuously staying at her parents’/uncle’s home with her child, hence, in such circumstances, husband prayed to dissolve his marriage on the ground of facing mental and physical cruelty from his wife.

¶18

It is noteworthy that although husband also made a prayer in the original petition that marriage be declared as void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but this plea was not accepted by the trial Court, however, trial Court held that acts and conducts of wife constitute cruelty towards husband, therefore, a decree of divorce has been passed.

¶19

Divorce petition was replied by wife and she stated that indeed, she was harassed by her husband, father-in-law, motherin-law and brothers-in-law, therefore, she went in depression and

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

(3 of 10)

became mentally disturbed. She alleged that her husband and inlaws often beat her and her minor son, for demand of dowry and finally in April, 2014, she was left with her son, at the bus-stand in Bulandshahar, from where she was taken by her uncle and since April, 2014 onward, she is staying at her parents/uncle’s home. Wife stated in her reply that after the incident in April, 2014, one criminal complaint under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC was lodged against husband and his family members wherein after investigation, charge-sheet against them has been filed. Lastly, wife denied her mental sickness as also the allegations of cruelty and prayed to dismiss the divorce petition filed by husband.

¶24

Learned trial Court after framing issues recorded evidence of both parties and vide judgment impugned dated 09.11.2017, passed decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act whereagainst this appeal has been preferred by wife.

¶25

In the impugned judgment, the trial Court also declared that wife is entitled to get Rs.2 lacs against her stridhan and Rs.5 lacs against permanent alimony for herself and her minor son, from husband.

¶26

Counsel for appellant argued that the trial Court has committed error in passing the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty whereas husband miserably failed to prove any cruelty by wife rather it is a case where wife has faced cruelty from husband and wife was forced to take shelter at her parents home and since 2014 onwards, she has been staying separately from her husband. His prayer is that decree of divorce be set aside and divorce petition be dismissed. In the alternative, he argued that if decree

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

(4 of 10)

of divorce is sustained by this Court, at least the amount of permanent alimony be enhanced suitably.

¶31

Per contra , counsel for husband argued that from the evidence on record, ground of cruelty stands proved against wife, hence, decree of divorce does not warrant any interference by this Court. As far as amount of Rs.2 lacs against stridhan of wife and Rs.5 lacs against permanent alimony is concerned, same was deposited by husband before the trial Court. In respect of enhancement of quantum of permanent alimony, he has opposed such prayer and states that as per the living standards and financial resources of husband, quantum of permanent alimony is just and proper as awarded by the trial Court.

¶32

We have heard counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the material on record. 8. From the record, it is clear that husband produced himself as AW-1 and his brother appeared to depose his statements as AW-2. Husband also summoned the concerned Doctor, who treated his wife at the Institute of Mental Health & Hospital, Agra and Doctor deposed his statement as AW-3. One independent witness, neighbour of husband, namely, Vikram Singh, was also produced by him as AW-4. In rebuttal, wife stepped in the witness-box and got recorded her statement as NAW-1, father of wife appeared as NAW-2 and one friend of father of wife also deposed his statement as NAW-3.

¶33

In the documentary evidence, medical prescriptions and other documents of treatment, discharge ticket of hospital etc. of wife were placed on record as Exhibits-1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 11 to 21, which were exhibited and proved by Doctor (AW-3).

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

(5 of 10)

In the evidence, husband, his brother and neighbour, (AW-1, AW-2 & AW-4) have clearly stated about the abnormal behaviour of wife. It has been stated by them that she often exposes strange behaviour and starts to laugh loudly without any reason and keeps herself hungry and thirsty and leaves food due to being under mental depression and one day, she climbed on the roof and attempted to jump off to commit suicide. It was further stated by them in one tune that wife is living at her parents home since 17.04.2014, when she went to attend marriage of her sister but has not returned. Husband has clearly deposed that when he went to take back his wife from her parents home, she denied and did not agree to come back to her matrimonial home. In the crossexamination of husband, his brother and neighbour, no crossexamination has been made from the side of wife in respect of her abnormal and weird acts. Further, evidence of Psychiatrist Doctor (AW-3) remained un-rebutted from the side of wife.

¶38

In the statements of wife (NAW-1), she does not dispute that she is suffering with mental disorder and depression and she candidly admits that she is undergoing medical treatment by Psychiatrist and taking medicines, five tablets in the morning and five tablets in the evening. Wife admits that under the adverse effect of medicines, she made an attempt to jump off the roof. Wife stated that indeed, she suffered this mental sickness on account of facing harassment by her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry and prior to marriage, she was absolutely mentally fit and normal. She further stated that when after beating, she was left by husband at bus-stand in Bulandshahar with her son, an FIR was lodged by her on the advise of her

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

(6 of 10)

parents against husband and other family members for demand of dowry and not returning her stridhan . Statements of wife have been corroborated by her father and friend of father (NAW-2 & 3). Both have stated that Rekha was harassed by husband and her inlaws for demand of dowry, due to which, she fell mentally sick. It is noteworthy that all have admitted in one tune that wife is staying at parents home since 2014 onward and has not returned to her matrimonial home thereafter.

¶43

It is worthy to note here that in the cross-examination of wife’s father (NAW-2), he admits that his daughter never asked him to go back at her matrimonial home nor he ever suggested her for this. In the statement of wife (NAW-1), she also admits in her cross-examination that she came at her parents home on 17.04.2014 to attend marriage of her sister, thereafter when her husband came to take her back, she declined to go with him at her matrimonial home.

¶44

As far as documents of medical treatment of wife are concerned, same have not been questioned and in a casual way, it has been stated by wife that same are fake. The documents on record show that wife has remained medically sick prior to the marriage as well and she has been a psychiatric patient and remained under treatment since 2007 onward, it means much prior to her marriage. Her Registration No.7998/2007 at Mehat Hospital and continuous treatment at Mental Hospital, Agra, stands proved by the documents (Exhibits-1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 11 to 21). Moreso, factum of undergoing the treatment by Psychiatrist Doctor, is also an admitted fact because wife herself admits in her cross-examination that her treatment is continuing

(7 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

and she takes five pills in the morning and five pills in the evening.

¶49

Having gone through the evidence of both the parties, it is established that husband has suffered mental and physical cruelty from his wife. It is not because of the reason that wife is not mentally sound or suffering from mental depression, but because of her abnormal and weird acts, wife (NAW-1) herself admits in her cross-examination that while she was staying at matrimonial home, she climbed on the roof and attempted to jump therefrom. Such a conduct of wife itself constitutes the ground of cruelty for divorce.

¶50

In case of Pankaj Mahajan Versus Dimple reported in (2011) 12 SCC 1 , action of wife attempting to commit suicide was considered cruelty and it was observed that such cruelty would be harmful or injurious to live with the spouse.

¶51

In an another case of Nagendra Versus K. Meena reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 , the Supreme Court observed that action of the wife such as locking herself in the bathroom and pouring kerosene so as to commit suicide amounted to mental cruelty. It was further observed that had she been successful in her attempt to commit suicide, it was the husband, who would have been put in immense difficulty because of the law and his life ruined. Such an act of mental cruelty could not be looked upon lightly by the Courts and was sufficient to entitle the husband to a decree of divorce. The Court referred to the case of Pankaj Mahajan Versus Dimple (supra) to arrive at this conclusion.

¶52

In the light of evidence of husband and admission of wife, it is evident that wife attempted to commit suicide by jumping from

(8 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

the roof and her such conduct squarely amounts to mental cruelty to husband and his living with wife may not be considered as harmless or safe for his future.

¶57

In addition to the above, it has come on record as an admitted fact that since April, 2014, wife is living separately from husband and staying at her parents’/uncle’s home. There has been no cohabitation between the parties since thereafter. In the crossexamination of wife (NAW-1), she admits that in the month of April, 2014, she went at her parents home to attend marriage of her sister and thereafter, her husband came to take her back, but she declined. In the statements of wife’s father (NAW-2), he admits that after April, 2014, her daughter never asked him to go back to her matrimonial home to live with her husband. He also admits that he too never suggested and asked to his daughter to go back to live with her husband. It has also come on record that wife lodged criminal case for offence under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC against husband and other family members of in-laws family wherein husband and his younger brother was arrested and released on bail.

¶58

Be that as it may, we are not considering here the issue of demand of dowry or harassment of wife since same is subject matter of criminal case and any of findings or observations, if made by us, may adversely affect the criminal case of either party. Nevertheless, for the purpose of considering these facts as a ground of cruelty for divorce, we are of the considered opinion that the cruelty towards husband stands established.

(9 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [(2023) 17 SCC 433] held and observed in Para Nos. 23 & 27 as under:-

¶63

“23. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the facade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act.

¶64

27. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed together as a couple for four years and who have now been living separately for the last 25 years. There is no child from the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the 1955 Act.”

¶65

It would not be out of place to record a finding here that wife never came up with a case that her abnormal and weird acts and behaviour were ever condoned by her husband nor it is her case that husband is trying to get benefit of any of her wrongs, which is otherwise not proved because it has been established on record that wife was suffering from mental disorder prior to her marriage and was undergoing medical treatment since 2007 onward. Learned trial Court passed a decree of divorce, taking into consideration the abnormal and weird acts of wife, who

(10 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:6330-DB]

[CMA-250/2018]

attempted suicide and also considered several other factors discussed hereinabove. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the decree of divorce passed by the trial Court.

¶70

In respect of quantum of permanent alimony, we have noticed that husband was initially doing some private job and later on, he left his job and is doing the work of farmer in village. Husband and wife both are not well educated and their living standard is not so high. Hence, considering the financial status, living standard and liabilities of husband to maintain his wife and minor son, the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs.5 lacs as fixed by trial Court is enhanced to Rs.10 lacs, which shall be paid by husband to wife. This amount of permanent alimony is in addition to the amount of Rs.2 lacs fixed by the trial Court against stridhan of wife and ordered to be paid by husband to wife.

¶71

If amount of Rs.7 lacs (Rs.2 lacs & Rs.5 lacs) as ordered by the trial Court has been deposited by the husband before the trial Court, same can be withdrawn by wife and Rs.5 lacs shall be adjustable against the amount of permanent alimony as fixed hereinabove. Husband shall be liable to pay enhanced amount of permanent alimony to wife and if nothing has been paid, then shall pay entire amount of Rs.12 lacs within a period of three months.

¶72

With the aforesaid directions, instant appeal is disposed of.

¶73

Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶74

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶75

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶76

SUNIL SOLANKI /37

Smt Rekha v. Heera Lal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rekha v. Heera Lal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary S/O Sh. Ramdhan Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Singh Son of Shri Girdhari Singh Vs Mr. Sudhansh Pant

Bhawani Shankar S/O Bhanwar Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Bimla Devi Sarpanch Vs Shri Vaibhav Galriya, Secretary

Ravindra Saini S/O Shri Mastaram @ Mahesh Chand Saini, Vs Shri Lallu Ram Meena

Brijsundar Regar S/O Dalchand, Vs Shri R. Venkateshwar