CMA/5232/2024 of DINESH CHHATWANI SON OF REWA CHAND CHHATWANI, Vs SMT GEETA MANKHANI WIFE OF SHRI DINESH CHHATWANI DAUGHTER OF KANHAIYA LAL MANKHANI, on 21 July 2026

Order

21/07/2026

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as husband) under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as Family Court) whereby the application filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1955’) was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband filed a divorce application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the wife stating therein that the marriage between the parties was

(2 of 5) [CMA-5232/2024] solemnized on 07.02.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs and before marriage, the husband was living at Dubai and after marriage, he called his wife to live with him. Both the parties were living together and one son & one daughter were born out of their said wedlock on 25.11.2008 and 27.07.2011 respectively. He further stated that the wife started quarelling with her on pity matters and insisted him to return to India and on 17.12.2016 when she came to attend marriage of her younger brother, a fight happened between them. It was further stated by him that the wife and children are living in Surat and the husband is living away from the children in Dubai and he requested his wife on 27.12.2016 to return to Dubai and she strongly refused to come and mediation between the parties also remained unsuccessful and the wife caused mental cruelty and lastly prayed for granting decree of divorce.

3. The wife filed reply to the said application and submitted that the husband has deserted the wife without any justifiable reason. The wife denied all the averments made by the husband in his application and she further stated that she was interested in living with her husband and also submitted the transfer certificate from school for admission of the children in school at Dubai and prayed for dismissing the application.

4. Thereafter, the husband in support of his application submitted his own evidence as AW-1 and of his mother as AW-2 and the wife in support of her case submitted her evidence as NAW-1 and of her father as NAW-2.

5. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the application filed on behalf of the husband

(3 of 5) [CMA-5232/2024] vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024, the husband has filed the present appeal.

6. Counsel for the husband submits that the wife is willfully living separately without any reason and the behaviour of the wife from the very beginning of their marriage was cruel with him and on many occasions she insulted the husband in front of family members and prayed for allowing the appeal.

7. Counsel for the husband relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh reported in (2007) 2 SCC 220 and A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22, Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli reported in AIR 2006 SCC 1675, Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Vimla Vs. Tarun Sing reported in AIR 2007 Rajasthan 101.

8. Counsel for the wife opposed the submissions made on behalf of the husband and submits that the wife is not living separately at her own free wishes but she was forced to live separately as the husband who is working in Dubai he has deliberately shifted the wife and the children to India and the presently they are living at Surat (Gujarat). Counsel further submits that the wife has denied all the allegations levelled by the husband in her cross-examination and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

(4 of 5) [CMA-5232/2024]

9. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. We have gone through the evidence of wife recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the statement & cross-examination of the husband (AW-1) recorded before the learned Family Court in which he has refused to live with his wife.

11. We have also considered the fact that the wife before the learned Family on asking stated that she is ready to go and live with the husband but the husband was not agreeable for the said proposal.

12. In our considered view, the husband does not want to live with the wife. We have also considered the fact that the husband has not given any notice to the wife to come and live with him.

13. We have also considered the fact that the husband in his cross-examination has admitted that although he lived in Dubai but on various occasions like birthday of their children he came and live together with the wife and children in Surat where the wife and their children live. Thus it cannot be said that the wife is living in Surat at her own wishes rather on asking of the husband she is living in Surat alongwith her children.

14. We have also considered the statement of wife NAW-1 in which she has denied all the allegations of cruelty levelled by the husband against her. She has also admitted that as and when the husband allowed the wife and their children to live in Dubai with him they lived in Dubai and at the time of filing of the divorce application, the wife and her children were living at Surat (India) on the wishes of the husband.

(5 of 5) [CMA-5232/2024]

15. In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the learned Family Court on issues No.1 & 2 are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same do not require any interference by this Court.

16. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Hence, this appeal filed on behalf of the husband stands dismissed. Record of the Court below be sent back. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J 32/JYOTI/362