Raj HC refuses divorce after 58-year marriage, says property dispute not cruelty

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a property dispute between spouses at an advanced stage of life, after decades of marriage without complaint, does not constitute cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman dismissed D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5773/2019 filed by Samudra Singh challenging the judgment dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Family Court, Bharatpur, which had rejected his divorce petition.

The parties were married on 29.06.1967 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The husband filed the divorce petition on 26.05.2014 alleging cruelty, including lodging of FIR No.142/2014 under Sections 498A, 406, 323/34 IPC, which culminated in a negative final report. He also alleged that his wife intended to transfer immovable property in favour of their eldest son alone and that she humiliated him and failed to care for him.

The wife, in her reply, denied the allegations and stated that both parties were residing in the same house. She contended that the property was purchased in her name and denied cruelty. She also stated that the FIR was lodged after she found her husband locked in a room with another woman.

The Family Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, found that the husband had not levelled any allegation of cruelty for the period from 1967 until 2013. It noted that the dispute arose only when the wife sought to transfer the property to the eldest son. The Family Court held that mere lodging of the FIR did not constitute cruelty and dismissed the divorce petition.

The High Court, after examining pleadings, evidence and findings of the Family Court, observed that no allegation of cruelty was made for nearly 46 years of married life. The Bench noted that the dispute appeared to have arisen due to disagreement regarding division of property between the sons. It further observed that trivial irritation, quarrels and normal wear and tear of married life do not amount to cruelty.

The Court recorded that the parties had lived together from 1967 to 2013 without complaint and had three children who are now married. It observed that dissolving the marriage at such an advanced age would not be just and proper.

The Bench also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar vs Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur, (2025) 3 SCC 790, where the Supreme Court declined to dissolve a marriage considering the advanced age of the parties and the sentiments of the wife.

Holding that no case of cruelty was made out and finding no error in the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title
Samudra Singh vs Smt. Uma Devi

Case Number
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5773/2019

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Justice Sudesh Bansal
Justice Anil Kumar Upman

Date of Order
09/02/2026

Advocates
For the Appellant: Mr. Mohit Khandelwal
For the Respondent: Mr. Kartik Soti for Mr. Anshul Sharma

Judgments Relied Upon
Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar vs Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur, (2025) 3 SCC 790