Rajasthan High Court
CMA/2910/2016 of SMT URMILA DEVI Vs RAHUL ALIAS HUKUM CHAND SAINI on 25 March 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2910/2016 Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Shri Rahul alias Hukumchand Saini D/o Shri Mangilal, Aged 25 years, R/o Village Tankarda, Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus Rahul alias Hukumchand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2910/2016
Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Shri Rahul alias Hukumchand Saini D/o Shri Mangilal, Aged 25 years, R/o Village Tankarda, Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
Rahul alias Hukumchand Saini S/o Shri Shankarlal Saini, R/o Plot No. 2, Kailash Vihar Colony, Hanumaan Ji Ka Rasta Village Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Ravi Jangir
For Respondent(s)
:
None Present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
25/03/2026
1. Instant statutory appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been preferred by appellant-wife, assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016, dismissing his divorce petition No. 11/2025 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by Additional District Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur.
2. Appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 06.07.2017.
3. As per office report, despite service of notice of appeal upon respondent-husband, no one has turned up.
4. It is noteworthy that before the trial Court as well, despite service of respondent-husband, he did not put in appearance and ex parte proceedings were drawn against him.
(2 of 4) [CMA-2910/2016]
5. We have heard counsel for appellant and perused the material available on record.
6. Appeallant came up with a case before the trial Court that her marriage solemnized with respondent on 11.06.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, be dissolved on the ground of cruelty and compromise entered into between parties.
7. It appears that appellant did not produce any document before the trial Court showing proof of solemnization of her marriage with respondent as also suffering with cruelty nor the document of compromise, referred by her in the divorce petition, was placed on record. Therefore, for want of documents, trial Court drawn an inference that the present divorce petition appears to be suffer from collusion and hence, same was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.04.2016.
8. In this appeal, appellant-wife has produced copy of an FIR No.526/2013 registered on her behest at Police Station Chomu, Jaipur (Rural) for offences under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC against her husband so also a copy of an Agreement/Settlement Deed dated 22.10.2013 allegedly executed between both parties after registering of the aforesaid FIR. Both documents have been placed on record along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, praying that before the trial Court, the copy of document could not be made available to appellant but since both documents are material and relevant to the issue involved herein, hence, may be taken on record.
9. As we have already noticed that no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent, despite service of notice neither before the trial Court nor before this Court in the appeal
(3 of 4) [CMA-2910/2016] and the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are material and relevant to the issue involved and in light of the Section 10 & 14 of the Family Courts Act, copies of FIR and Agreement/Settlement Deed are taken on record.
10. As per FIR, allegations by wife were levelled against husband to subject her to cruelty, mentally and physically, as much as to harass her for dowry demand, therefore, it appears that husband entered into mutual settlement with wife and after exchanging of the streedhan and other dues including the maintenance, both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage. In conformity to such mutual Agreement, copy of Agreement dated 22.10.2013 allegedly executed between parties and duly signed by both parties, is available on record.
11. In this Agreement, para No.10 clearly stipulates that in case, both parties shall not file a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent, appellant-wife would be entitled to seek dissolution of marriage based on this Agreement.
12. The additional documents, which have been placed on record by appellant before this Court were not available before the trial Court, hence, in absence of these documents, the trial Court drew a presumption of collusion between parties.
13. We are of the considered opinion that in the light of additional documents referred hereinabove, the factum of solemnization of marriage between parties may not be disbelieved. More so, the fact that appellant-wife suffers mental and physical cruelty at behest of her husband may also be inferred based on the allegations levelled in the FIR and the mutual Agreement dated 22.10.2013. On the basis of these documents,
(4 of 4) [CMA-2910/2016] the inference drawn by the Family Court about having collusion, does not find any leg to stand, rather an inference can be drawn that husband did not oppose to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Non appearance of husband, despite service of notice before the trial Court so also before this Court in appeal, further corroborates his mute consent to dissolve the marriage.
14. As a result, instant appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
15. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 is hereby quashed. The marriage solemnized between parties dated 11.06.2011 is declared dissolved and a decree of divorce in favour of appellant-wife, against husband is granted on the ground of cruelty envisaged under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
16. The Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly.
17. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
18. Record of the trial Court be sent back. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /80