Failure to withdraw criminal case after compromise weighs against wife; husband granted divorce, wife’s Section 9 plea rejected

Jaipur: The Family Court No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I has dismissed a wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and granted a decree of divorce to the husband under Section 13, holding that the wife failed to establish that the husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable cause and that the husband had succeeded in proving cruelty. The judgment was delivered on March 19, 2026, in connected matrimonial proceedings between the husband and the wife.

Talking to The PinkCity Post, family court advocate DS Shekhawat who represented the husband said that the Court heard together the wife’s petition seeking restoration of matrimonial life and the husband’s divorce petition, noting that both arose out of the same marriage and involved overlapping pleadings and allegations. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on February 22, 2016, and a daughter was born from the wedlock.

In her petition, the wife alleged that soon after marriage she was harassed over dowry, taunted for bringing inadequate articles, insulted by being called a practitioner of witchcraft, and subjected to abuse and assault. She claimed that she was wrongfully turned out of the matrimonial home and sought a decree directing restoration of conjugal rights.

Shekhawat said that the husband denied those allegations and, in his own petition for divorce, alleged that the wife used to quarrel with him and his family, abuse them, call the police, threaten false dowry cases, and create circumstances amounting to mental and physical cruelty. He sought dissolution of the marriage on that basis.

After considering the pleadings, evidence, cross-examination, complaints made before the Women’s Commission, compromise efforts between the parties, and the criminal proceedings referred to in the record, the Court found significant contradictions in the wife’s version. The Court noted that although serious allegations were made with reference to events in 2017, the record also indicated that the parties continued to live together thereafter, including at Medta, and that the wife’s own case did not clearly establish from what date she had begun living separately or what immediate incident led to permanent separation.

On the issue relating to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court held that the burden was on the wife to prove that the husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable excuse. On an appraisal of the evidence, the Court concluded that she had failed to discharge that burden. It found that her pleadings and testimony were not consistent with other material on record and that she could not satisfactorily prove abandonment by the husband without just cause. Accordingly, that issue was decided against her.

While examining the husband’s plea for divorce, the Court discussed the concept of cruelty in matrimonial law and observed that cruelty may be physical or mental. Referring to settled legal principles, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, the Court noted that cruelty may be inferred where the conduct of one spouse creates insecurity, humiliation, mental oppression, or a reasonable apprehension that matrimonial life cannot continue in the normal course.

An important factor noted by the Court was that the couple had tried to reconcile in the past. The judgment refers to proceedings before the Women’s Commission, attempts at compromise, and occasions when, after intervention, the wife returned to live with the husband. The Court also noted material on record suggesting that even after the 2017 complaint and the later criminal case, the parties continued to stay together for some time, including at Medta.

The Court further observed that although there had been repeated compromise efforts and the parties had resumed cohabitation for a period, the criminal case filed by the wife was not withdrawn. According to the Court, this background, along with the wife’s own admissions and other material on record, became relevant while examining whether her allegations were consistent and whether the husband’s case of cruelty was made out.

Applying those principles to the facts of the case, the Court accepted the husband’s case that the conduct attributed to the wife amounted to cruelty. The Court also took note of the surrounding circumstances, repeated disputes, complaints, and the inconsistencies between the wife’s allegations and the subsequent course of conduct reflected in the record.

In the result, the Family Court dismissed the wife’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and allowed the husband’s petition under Section 13, bringing the marital relationship to an end by a decree of divorce.