Dr. Bagdia v. Dr. Bagdia - Divorce Petition Appeal

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 25, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Dr. Amitkumar Madhusudan Bagdia vs Dr. Shritika Amitkumar Bagdia And Other on 27 March, 2026

Author: M.S. Jawalkar

Bench: M.S. Jawalkar

2026:BHC-NAG:5200-DB

                   FCA46.23.odt                                                                  1/44

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                     FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2023

                   1.      Dr. Amitkumar Madhusudan Bagdia,
                           aged about 36 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner,
                           R/o Amankha Plot, Akola Tq. & Distt. Akola.
                           Email id - amit_bagdia@rediffmail.com
                           WhatsApp no. 9013949644

                                                                                            ... APPELLANT
                                                                                           (Ori. Petitioner)

                                             ...VERSUS...

                   1.      Dr. Shritika Amitkumar Bagdia,
                           Aged about - 31 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner,
                           R/o C/o Sunil Suresh Sureka, Gorakshan Road,
                           behind Vaibhav Hotel, Akola Tq. & Distt. Akola.
                           Email id - shritika797@gmail.com
                           WhatsApp no. 9403760562

                   Workplace address -

                   1.      Dr. Shritika Bagdia (nee Sureka)
                           Department of Radiology (CT Scan) ICON Hospital,
                           Kedia Plot, Akola 444002.

                   2.      Dr. Shritika Bagdia (nee Sureka)
                           Department of Radiology (CT Scan)
                           Government Medical College
                           (Main Hospital, Akola).
                                                                                           ...RESPONDENT
                                                                                        (Ori. Respondent)
                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Mr. F. T. Mirza Ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. J. B. Gandhi & Ms. Preeti
                   Gwalani & Rozat Akolawale, Advocates for the appellant.
                   Mr. V. H. Goenka, Advocate for the respondent.
                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FCA46.23.odt 2/44

   CORAM :     SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
               NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

   RESERVED ON   : 16th FEBRUARY, 2026.
   PRONOUNCED ON : 27 th MARCH, 2026.

JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family

Courts Act, challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2023 in Petition

No. A-98 of 2021, which was dismissed by the Family Court at

Akola. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on

04.10.2023. Thereafter, we have heard the appeal and also gone

through the record of the matter with the assistance of learned

counsels appearing for the respective parties.

1. The husband, i.e., the appellant herein, filed a petition

seeking decree of divorce against the wife, i.e., the respondent

herein, on the ground of cruelty and disorder or unsoundness of

mind, as contemplated under Section 13(1) (i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of

1955').

1. Facts as emerging from the petition and from the judgment of

the Family Court are as under:-

(a) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on

09.03.2019. The said marriage was an arranged marriage

performed with the consent of the parties and also their relatives. It

is further stated in the petition that the appellant husband and the

respondent wife, met for the first time in November 2018 for the

purpose of assessing the compatibility and knowing each other as

life partners. At the said time, the appellant husband as also the

respondent wife were Medical Professionals, the appellant husband

was pursuing his Post Graduation in M.Ch. Surgical Oncology and

the respondent wife was pursuing her Post-Graduate degree in

Radiodiagnosis from Lilavati Hospital in Bandra, Mumbai.
(b) The appellant husband, at the relevant time, was working at

Tata Hospital, Parel Mumbai. As stated above, the marriage

between the parties took place on 09.03.2019 at Akola, as per

Hindu Rites and Customs. After the performance of marriage, the

parties resided with the parents of the husband at Akola for two

days and then left for Mumbai. It is further stated in the petition

that at the convocation ceremony of the husband at Mumbai,

having completed his M.Ch in Surgical Oncology, the conduct of the

respondent wife was of total withdrawal and she did not interact

with the friends/colleagues of the husband which caused severe

mental agony to him. It is further stated in the petition that

thereafter the parties went to Maldives for honeymoon wherein, the

respondent wife was least interested in the normal activities of a

couple without any apparent reason. This fact was supplemented

with repeated threats of cancelling the honeymoon. After returning

from Maldives, there was no change in the behavioural pattern of

the respondent wife. It is alleged that she was short-tempered,

always yelling, abusing and throwing tantrums for no reason.

(c) The husband i.e. appellant further states in the petition that

the respondent wife never had any emotions, love, sympathy or care

towards the husband and her behaviour was totally unpredictable

and impulsive in nature. The husband in turn tried to pacify things

and attributed the respondent wife's unreasonable behaviour to her

initial adjustment phase in the new home and married life.

However, there was no sign of any improvement in the behavioural

pattern of the respondent wife.

(d) It is further stated in the petition that when the husband and

wife were riding on a motorcycle in Bandra (Mumbai), on crowded

streets, the respondent wife for no logical reason jumped from the

motorcycle creating a scene on the road. She even slapped the

appellant in full public view and threatened to commit suicide. It is

further stated in the petition that in June 2019, when the appellant

husband tried to communicate these problems to the parents of the

respondent wife, they paid no heed to him. It is, therefore, alleged

that they had willfully concealed the mental condition of the

respondent wife. Furthermore, on 16.06.2019, the father of the

respondent wife took her to one Dr. Aditi Acharya, a prominent

psychiatrist in Mumbai, who prescribed her some medications.

However, since there was no desired outcome of the said

medication, her parents took her to another psychiatrist, namely Dr.

Nahid Dave. It is alleged in the petition that both the psychiatrists,

after a meticulous case discussion amongst themselves, diagnosed

the wife with "personality disorder".

(e) In the backdrop of above mentioned events, both the

appellant husband and the respondent wife decided to take a

professional marriage counseling for a prolonged period of time the

same was accordingly done. However, the same also did not yield

any desired result. During that period as well, it is alleged that the

respondent wife used to abuse the appellant husband in filthy

language and her behavioural pattern was changing from bad to

worse. It is alleged in the petition that during the said period of

cohabitation between the parties, the mental health of the

respondent wife was evaluated by eight psychiatrists and

psychotherapists.

(f) The petition further avers that in the month of April 2020,

the respondent wife tried to gulp down a large dose of psychiatric

medicines over a petty dispute between the parties. The husband

was fed up with this abnormal behaviour and therefore on

07.05.2020 returned to Akola. However, the respondent wife

continued her erratic behaviour over telephone, abusing,

blackmailing and accusing the appellant husband. The appellant

husband further states in the petition that the parents of the

respondent wife continued to cover up her psychological issues. In

the month of August 2020, the appellant received a telephonic call

from one Radhika, who is the sister of the respondent wife,

informing that the respondent has tried to commit suicide by

consuming a large number of psychiatric medications at once. The

petition further avers that the respondent wife, at multiple

occasions, informed the appellant that she is looking for another

companion and seeks divorce from him. Accordingly, appellant

husband contacted an Advocate, namely Advocate Parwani, and

prepared a draft for mutual consent divorce. It is alleged that the

appellant husband intimated this fact to the respondent wife and

after meeting Advocate Parwani, both of them went for a dinner

together. At the said dinner, dispute arose between husband and

wife on some petty issue resulting in wife blowing kicks, scratching

and even biting the husband, as a result of which he was badly

injured and started bleeding. It is alleged that, in that condition

also, the appellant husband took the respondent wife to her friend's

(Ravina) house, as per her wish and from there they went to the

maternal home of the respondent wife. It is further stated that the

appellant husband narrated the behaviour of the respondent wife to

her parents and relatives but they did not pay any heed to the same.

(g) It is further stated that after 3-4 days of the above mentioned

incident, i.e., on 21.03.2021, wife i.e. the respondent sent a long

Whatsapp message seeking apology and expressing remorse for her

irrational and uncontrollable behaviour of the said night. Being

unable to bear the said cruelty of the respondent, the appellant

husband approached the Family Court for seeking divorce on the

ground of mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind / mental

disorder.

(h) In response to the notice / summons issued by the Family

Court, the respondent wife filed her written statement thereby

specifically denying all the allegations made against her by the

appellant husband. It is her contention that the husband is very

dominating in character and always condemns her for every wrong

and is never satisfied unless she apologies. It is further stated in the

written statement, that the appellant husband used to have long

conversations with his mother on phone and only after the call, he

used to talk with the respondent wife. The respondent wife has

made a counter allegation that it is the appellant husband who

continuously threatened her of divorce.

(i) It is further alleged that it was only for the satisfaction of the

appellant husband that the respondent went along with her

husband to the psychiatrist. She further states that both of them

have undergone personality test but the husband has not mentioned

the said fact in the petition. It is further stated in the written

statement that one Dr. Deepak Kelkar, a well-known psychiatrist

from Akola, who was introduced by the husband to the wife has

stated that he found no behavioral problem with the respondent

wife and advised her to immediately stop the medicines prescribed

by the other psychiatrists.

(j) As far as preparation of the divorce deed and meeting with

Advocate Parwani is concerned, the respondent wife states that the

said divorce deed was prepared without her having any intimation

or knowledge in that regard. It is further stated that the appellant

husband took her to the office of Advocate Parwani on the pretext

of going for dinner. However, after realizing the said fact, she

refused to sign the deed.

(k) In the written statement, the respondent wife further states

that on 16.03.2020, the appellant forcefully entered the house of

the parents of the respondent and created a scene. The respondent

wife made a counter allegation that due to the conduct of the

appellant husband, she suffered extreme mental agony and was in a

state of constant mental tension. On 06.06. 2021, the appellant

husband sent a soft copy of divorce petition filed by him against the

respondent wife on her email. It is further stated that on

14.06.2021 and 09.07.2021, the appellant husband and his mother

sent a letter on WhatsApp to the relatives of the respondent wife

with defamatory statements against her and her family members.

1. On the basis of these pleadings, the Family Court framed

issues and the parties went on trial. Both the parties examined

themselves and the respondent wife also examined one witness

namely Sandip Sureshchand Sureka (maternal uncle of the

respondent wife).

1. Interestingly enough, during the course of arguments, the

appellant husband filed a pursis vide Exhibit No. 86. The said pursis

states that he does not wish to press the ground of unsoundness of

mind as contemplated under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act of 1955.

The said pursis was filed on 05.08.2023. The pursis mentions that

the petitioner is not pressing the decree of divorce on the ground of

unsoundness of mind as reflected under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act

of 1955 to "avoid any inconvenience to the respondent wife in

future".

1. The learned Family Court after hearing the parties at length,

passed a judgment on 18.08.2023, thereby dismissing the petition

filed by the appellant husband. It is this judgment, which is

impugned in the present appeal.

1. In the backdrop of these facts, the only residuary ground of

divorce is of cruelty as provided under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act

of 1955.

1. The following points arise for our determination and the

findings thereon are recorded as under:-

Points Findings
1. Does the appellant husband prove that

  the respondent wife has treated him with
                                                    Yes
  cruelty as envisaged under [Section 13(1)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40332/) (i-a) of the Act of 1955?

1. Does the respondent wife proves that the

   allegations of cruelty made in the
   No
   petition are intrinsically connected with

   the allegations of unsoundness of mind?

2. Is the appellant husband entitled for a

   decree of divorce on the ground of Yes

   cruelty?

3. Does the judgment of the learned Family

   Court warrants interference in appellate Yes
   As per final order
   jurisdiction?

4. What order? Appeal is allowed

            DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF HUSBAND
   

   Ex.No. Evidence
   Ex. 33 Sorry card given by wife.
   Ex. 35 (1 to 9) Mobile chats between husband and wife DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED IN CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HUSBAND

Ex.No. Evidence
Ex. 40 Parichay patra.

Ex. 41 Message sent by husband to Dr. Virendra Modi dtd.14/06/21.

Ex. 42 Message at Sr.No.27/9.
Ex. 43 Message at Sr.No.27/8.
Ex. 44 Message at Sr.No.27/11.
Ex. 45 Message at Sr.No.27/12.
Ex. 46 Message sent by husband to Dr. Divya Choudhary.

Ex.No. Evidence
Ex. 47 Message at Sr.No.27/17.
Ex. 48 Photographs of first Bhaubij and Rang Panchami.
Ex. 55 Document at Sr.No.42 filed with List Ex.3

                       ORAL EVIDENCE OF WIFE

 Ex.No.                                Evidence

Ex. 61 Affidavit evidence of wife.
Ex. 79 Affidavit evidence of witness for wife.

                  DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF WIFE

Ex.No. Evidence
Ex. 72
Email filed with list Ex.54
& 72(1) Ex. 73 Parichay patra received wife on her phone, filed with list
(1 to 3) Ex.54.

Since all the points are interconnected with each other, the

same are being discussed in conjunction and not separately.

1. Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act of 1955, which would be

relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal, is reproduced

hereunder :

"Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, may on a petition presented
by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a
decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-

(i-a) 'has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated
the petitioner with cruelty;"."

1. In the backdrop of these facts and the documents referred to

above, we have heard Mr. F. T. Mirza, learned Senior Counsel, with

Mr. J. B. Gandhi, Ms. Preeti Gwalani, and Ms. Rozat Akolawale,

learned counsel for the appellant husband, as also, Mr. V. H.

Goenka, learned counsel for the respondent wife.

1. The learned Senior Counsel, by taking us through the

voluminous record of the matter, has pointed out various infirmities

in the judgment. As regard to the messages sent on WhatsApp, as

also the email / PDF dated 18.07.2020 (Exhibit No. 35), the learned

Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court has recorded a finding

that the respondent wife has admitted in her cross-examination that

all these four messages were sent by her to the husband when they

were residing separately. He, therefore, submits that the finding

recorded by the trial Court that the burden has shifted on the

appellant husband, in view of the cross-examination, is totally

incorrect, since it is the wife who has chosen to allege that the

messages are fabricated.

1. Further, he submits that as far as the aspect of signing the

mutual divorce petition at the office of Advocate Parwani is

concerned, the finding of the trial Court relying on the cross-

examination of the respondent wife, is again based on presumption,

inasmuch as the trial Court is not sure regarding the same. He

points out in the finding of the trial Court, that the reason of quarrel

may be the refusal of the wife to sign the divorce petition. He,

therefore, submits that the said finding is inconclusive.

1. Taking his argument further, he submits that the cross-

examination of the wife regarding the aspect of the mutual divorce

petition has elucidated many admissions which support the case of

the appellant husband. It is his further submission that the finding

of the trial Court regarding the breaking of any part of the car

without a hard object is not easy has no basis and is inherently

incorrect.

1. It is his further submission that the conclusion reached by the

trial Court that the cross-examination is suggestive of the fact that

there was no dispute between the appellant husband and

respondent wife per se and only between the wife and the mother-

in-law is also erroneous and lacks any factual basis. It is his further

submission that the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding

the episode of the husband going to the clinic of one Dr. Panpaliya

to seek treatment is also erroneous for the reason that it is a normal

conduct of any person as he did want to disclose any fact/quarrel to

the employees of his own hospital.

1. It is his further submission that only because the parents of

respondent wife were not examined, cannot be said to be indicative

of the fact that the appellant husband did not prove cruelty. By

pointing out paragraph 48 of the impugned judgment, it is

contended that the benefit arising from the admission of the

appellant husband's witness during cross-examination was extended

to respondent wife but not to him. He, therefore, submits that such

approach is erroneous and cannot be countenanced.

1. As far as the publishing of the bio-data at Exhibit No. 40 is

concerned, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that

the finding regarding the same being made with malicious intention

to defame the respondent wife. This fact was indicative enough for

the trial Court to grant a decree of divorce. By taking us through

paragraph 55 of the impugned judgment, the learned Senior

Counsel submits that the findings recorded regarding the fact that

the allegations of cruelty are not conveniently pleaded are totally

erroneous, since the husband has chosen to make all allegations

with sufficient clarity in the pleadings.

1. It is further submitted that the entire approach of the trial

Court, with respect to the allegations that they were made at drop

of a hat, is entirely flawed. The reasoning of the trial Court that in

order to level the allegations of unsoundness of mind/ mental

disorder against the respondent wife should be pleaded and proved

need with clarity and cogent material is completely erroneous. He

further submits that even though, during the course of arguments,

the ground of unsoundness of mind / mental disorder was not

pressed, still the trial Court has ventured to consider that ground

and has recorded a finding that the statement is deceiving. This

observation, according to the appellant, is without any reason and is

vague in nature.

1. He further submits that the finding of the trial Court that the

husband should show or prove the reasons behind such abnormal

conduct of the respondent wife is without any basis and is contrary

to the settled position of law. He also submits that the finding of the

trial Court with regard to the allegations made by the husband does

not pertain to mental cruelty but are of simple trivialities of marital

life, is without any basis, since the husband has sufficiently proved

that the conduct of the respondent wife has caused disturbance to

his mind which is mental cruelty.

1. He further submits that the trial Court did not consider the

background and social status of the families, which is a relevant

factor in terms of the settled position of law in this regard. He also

submits that, even a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a

spouse that living together with the partner would endanger his life,

limb, and liberty is sufficient enough to reach the conclusion of

mental cruelty. He submits that admittedly there is no petition filed

for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent wife. It is

submitted that had it been the real intention of the respondent wife

to cohabit, she could have reflected so by filing the said petition.

Furthermore, it is submitted that while applying for passport, the

respondent wife has shown her marital status as separate, as also,

she remained absent for mediation. He therefore submits that, in a

nutshell, it was incumbent on the trial Court to record the findings

in favour of the husband for mental cruelty. He, therefore, prays for

allowing the appeal.

1. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant husband, has relied upon the following judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court.

I) Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan reported in (2023) 14

  SCC 231

  II)      Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni reported in 2023 (6)

  Mh.LJ.534.

III) Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian reported in 2024 SCC

  OnLine 3822.

IV) Yogendra Bhoir v. Prema Bhoir reported in 2025 SCC

  OnLine 4997.

V) Beena M.S. v. Shino G.Babu reported in 2022 SCC

  OnLine Ker 778.

VI) Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4 SCC

1. VII) Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC

511.

1. Per contra, Mr. V. H. Goenka, the learned counsel appearing

for the respondent wife, submits that, as can be seen from the

record, the majority of the life of the respondent wife has been

spent in Mumbai. She was working in various hospitals, firstly as a

medical student and then as an intern. He therefore submits that

since her life was in the public domain, it was natural that if there

were any incidents of abnormal behaviour on her part, the same

would have been reflected by filing of complaints against her. In the

absence of any such complaint, the allegations made by the

appellant husband can be construed as far from truth.

1. He further submits that the allegations of mental cruelty are

entirely dependent upon the ground of unsoundness of mind /

mental disorder. Having chosen not to press the ground of

unsoundness of mind / mental disorder, the appellant husband

cannot plead and prove the ground of mental cruelty

independently. He further submits that, admittedly, no independent

witness was examined by the appellant husband to prove the

ground of mental cruelty, on the other hand, the respondent wife

has chosen to examine herself and her uncle.

1. By taking us through the evidence and the pleadings, the

learned counsel for the respondent wife submits that, it is not clear

if the psychiatric treatment undergone by her was also before

solemnization of the said marriage. By pointing out various

averments made by her in the evidence on affidavit, the learned

counsel for the respondent wife submits that the allegations

regarding numerous incidents, which allegedly happened in

Mumbai, in many places including theaters, malls, markets,

restaurants, and even at the workplace of the petitioner, could not

be said to be proved for want of examination of independent

witnesses. Referring to paragraphs 17 and 22, the learned counsel

for the respondent wife submits that, there is no corroborative

evidence for any incidence alleged in the petition or in the

examination-in-chief

1. By pointing out paragraph 89 of the written statement of the

respondent wife, the learned counsel submits that it was only

because of the appellant husband's continuous insistence, ridiculous

allegations, and constant pressure to take psychiatric medications

and in spite of the adverse opinion of all counsellors and

psychiatrists, that the life of the respondent wife has now become

miserable. He therefore submits that it was only on the insistence of

the appellant husband that she accompanied him to the various

psychiatrists.

1. The learned counsel for the respondent wife therefore

submits that the core question which this Court would be deciding

is that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whether

the ground of unsoundness of mind / mental disorder is so

intrinsically connected to mental cruelty that withdrawal of one

ground would ipso facto lead to refusal of divorce on the ground of

mental cruelty. By stretching this analogy, he submits that there is

no separate evidence, for the ground of unsoundness of mind /

mental disorder and mental cruelty, and therefore not pressing the

ground of unsoundness of mind /mental disorder at the last stage is

indicative enough to gauge the hollowness of the claim.

1. Referring to the additional submissions made in the written

statement, the learned counsel submits that it was the petitioner,

i.e., the appellant herein, who has failed and neglected to discharge

the marital obligations as a husband, since there has been constant

interference of the appellant's mother in the day-to-day functioning

of their married life, as also their professional life. The same has

been admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination.

1. As far as the incident of January 2021 is concerned, the

learned counsel for the respondent wife submits that it has been

reflected in the cross-examination of the appellant husband that he

refused to accompany the respondent wife and only on her

insistence the tickets were booked. Therefore, he submits that there

is no merit in the petition, as the respondent wife is still ready to

reside with the appellant husband.

1. It is his further submission that, as far as the incident about

bio-data is concerned, the appellant husband has admitted that the

same was prepared after filing of the petition. Referring to [Section

22](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1044249/) of the Act of 1955, the learned counsel for the respondent wife

submits that the entire burden is on the appellant husband, even if

the averments in the petition are defended or not. It is therefore his

submission that the appellant husband wants to take benefit of his

own wrong.

1. Alternatively, he submits that by virtue of the fiction of Section 23(1)(d) of the Act of 1955, even if any cruelty was

practiced by the respondent wife, the same has been condoned. This

particular fact is very well reflected in the impugned judgment. He,

therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

1. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

respondent wife places reliance on the following judgments;

I) Deepti Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

     Del 5829.

II) Rakesh Jaiswal vs. Vaishali Rakesh Jaiswal reported in

     2017 SCC Online Bom 8832.

III) Harish Karnewar vs. Leelavati Karnewar Family Court

     Appeal No. 19 of 2017, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench,

     Order dated 26.09.2023

     (IV) Chandrakiran Pise vs. Anil Pise reported in 2014 SCC

     Online Bom 3507

     (V) Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane        reported in

     (1975) 2 SCC 326.

([VI) Mansi Mohan Chandarkar vs. Mohan Vishnu

     Chandarkar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32830154/) reported in 2016 SCC Online Bom 16068. (VII)       Rajendra Sahebrao Sanap vs. Leena Rajendra

     Sanap reported in 2021 SCC Online Bom 13975.

(VIII) Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer, reported in (2014)

     10 SCC 473.

(IX) Atul vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

     MANU/MH/4813/2021. (X) Sagar Raghunath Nimbole v. State of Maharashtra,

     Criminal Application (APL) No. 719/2025, Bombay High

     Court, Nagpur Bench, Order dated 06.10.2025.

1. In his rejoinder argument, Learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellant husband submits that there were two separate

grounds at the time of filing of the petition, and there are two

separate causes of action which are separately mentioned in the

petition. It is, therefore, his submission that the two grounds are not

interconnected and one can be deciphered from the other.

1. By taking us through the various incidents narrated in the

petition, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant husband

submits that they have been described in the petition with utmost

clarity, and the particularities necessary for adjudication have been

provided.

1. He further submits that there was no cross-examination,

except for an averment that the WhatsApp messages were written

on the insistence of the appellant husband, as stated in the written

statement. He further submits that, in fact, the respondent wife has

admitted that she has sent the WhatsApp messages to the appellant

on various dates. He submits that there are two litigations initiated

by the wife: one is the private complaint bearing Defamation Case

No. 1749 of 2023, and the other is a civil suit bearing Special Civil

Suit No. 118 of 2023, which is for monetary damages. He therefore

submits that all these facts are sufficiently indicative to conclude

that mental cruelty has indeed been practiced.

1. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned

counsel for the respective parties, we also had gone through the

entire record, including various judgments placed on record, as also

with the voluminous record of the matter.

1. As far as the incident of refusing to bow down to the elderly

people in the family are concerned, the trial Court has disbelieved

the same, noting that the photographs filed by the respondent are

sufficient to indicate the falsity of the appellant's allegations. In the

said photograph, which is at Exhibit 49, the husband and wife are

seen taking blessings from one of the senior-most elderly person in

a bowing position. This, in the opinion of the Family Court, is

sufficient to reject the allegations made by the husband. The Court

has, therefore, recorded a finding that this allegation is not proved.

In view of the fact that there was no material evidence on record to

refute this allegation, we agree with the finding of the Family Court.

1. Another instance regarding the alleged cruelty, as averred by

the appellant, is a "sorry" (apology) greeting card sent by the wife

to the husband on the occasion of their first one-month marriage

anniversary. The Family Court accepted the explanation provided

by the respondent wife in the context of the allegations made

against her. However, in our view, the Family Court erred while

shifting the burden on the appellant, particularly on the premise

that there was no cross-examination of the respondent wife on the

relevant aspect. The reasoning of the Family Court is fallacious as it

was the burden on the wife to prove that the said card was sent at

the instance of appellant husband.

1. The next incident quoted by the Family Court is the loss of a

necklace, which was a precious one, on the night of the wedding.

The finding that gives benefit to the respondent wife with respect to

the said incident, in our view, suffers from speculation and

conjecture. As can be seen from the relevant portion, even the

Family Court is not certain and records a finding that the allegation

of the husband does not seem to be probable. In our view, this

approach is not correct, and the Court could have arrived at a

conclusive finding in that regard. Apart from this the said finding is

unsustainable as the Family Court has made out a case of

'probability' which was not even pleaded by the respondent.

1. The most crucial aspect in the present appeal is the

WhatsApp messages sent on 18.07.2020, 15.11.2020, 04.12.2020,

and 21.03.2021. It is a matter on record that the respondent wife

has admitted in her cross-examination that all these four messages

were sent by her to the husband. It is also an admitted position on

record that on all these four dates, both were residing separately.

The only explanation provided by the respondent wife regarding the

sending of the messages is that they were sent on the insistence of

the husband. Thus, if the respondent wife chooses to aver and plead

that the said WhatsApp messages were in fact sent on the insistence

of her husband, in our view, the onus shifts on her to prove the

same. The evidence and material on record do not show that the

wife has discharged the said onus. Merely stating that the messages

were sent on the insistence of the husband would not suffice in law,

and the onus would remain undischarged. She has further gone to

say that the said messages are edited and fabricated. However,

applying the same principle, merely averring that the messages are

edited and fabricated is not sufficient unless the specific edits or

fabrication (if any) are pleaded and then proved.

1. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the messages

sent from the mobile phone of the respondent wife could not be

produced, since even according to her, and as admitted by her in

cross-examination, she had changed her mobile in May 2021, prior

to receiving the summons of the proceedings in the Family Court.

1. Furthermore, the Family Court has recorded a finding that

the messages do not bear the date of sending, and while the

screenshot is filed on record, the remaining contents are typed on a

separate paper and then filed on record. According to the Family

Court, the said screenshot and the typed paper show "last modified

at 11.21," which is reflected in the document at Exhibit 35(4),

whereas the typed content shows at the top as "last modified at

22.34." The Court has, therefore, gone on to believe the contention

raised by the respondent wife that the messages are edited and

fabricated.

1. The respondent's reliance on Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Atul v. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2022 ALLMR (Cri) 2396 to challenge the admissibility

of the WhatsApp messages on the ground of absence of a Section

65B certificate is wholly misplaced and cannot be countenanced.

Both the said decisions arose in the context of criminal proceedings

and election matters, where the strict standards of the [Indian

Evidence Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1953529/) apply in their entirety. The present proceedings are

governed by the Family Courts Act, 1984, and specifically by Section 14 thereof, which explicitly empowers the Family Court to

receive any report, statement, document, or information that may

assist it in dealing effectually with the dispute, notwithstanding that

the same may not be admissible under the said Act. More

fundamentally, the question of formal admissibility of the

WhatsApp messages is in any event rendered entirely academic in

the present case, inasmuch as the respondent wife herself has

admitted in cross-examination that all four messages dated

18.07.2020, 15.11.2020, 04.12.2020, and 21.03.2021 were sent by

her. An admission by the party herself constitutes the best evidence

in law, and no certificate under Section 65B is required to prove a

document voluntarily admitted by the party against whom it is

sought to be used.

1. This consideration and the finding recorded thereto, in our

view, is clearly erroneous, in as much as the Family Court lost sight

of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act as also Section 20 of the said

Act which are reproduced as under:-

Section 14 of the Family Courts Act reads as under :

"A Family Court may receive as evidence any report,
statement, documents, information or matter that may, in
its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute,

whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or
admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ".
Section 20 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is reads as under:-

"Act to have overriding effect.--The provisions of this Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being
in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of
any law other than this Act."

1. The Family Court also failed to appreciate that there were no

material particulars regarding the alleged editing and fabricating of

the messages and, therefore, as stated by us supra, the onus did not

shift onto the wife, particularly when she had admitted the sending

of these messages. Thus, the finding of the trial Court is erroneous

in nature.

1. The next incident is regarding the insistence of the husband

for signing the mutual consent divorce deed at the office of one

Advocate Parwani. After elaborately discussing the chief and cross-

examination, the Family Court has again disbelieved the alleged

incident as stated in the petition by the appellant. The basis for

disbelieving such incident, according to the Family Court, is the

matter of common knowledge that it is not easy to break any part of

a car without a hard object. The Court further records the finding

that there is no documentary evidence to ascertain the car damage.

This, in our view, is too far-fetched and too technical a finding,

apart from the fact that there is no basis to reach such a conclusion.

The Family Court lost sight of the fact that it was not deciding a

dispute which is strictly civil in nature, but a marital dispute where

emotions play a major role.

1. The next aspect is regarding the alleged unnecessary

interference of the mother of the appellant husband. The trial Court

has brushed aside the said contention on a very specious reason that

these are trivial in nature and common in Indian families. The said

finding, in our view, also cannot be endorsed as it is vague in

nature. Further, it can be seen that the aspect of attempts at

negotiation or mediation has failed. By referring to the relevant

cross-examination, the Family Court has recorded that the omission

to mention the mental illness of the respondent wife to the

mediator is indicative of the falsity thereof. This, in our view, is of

little relevance, since admittedly the appellant has not pressed the

ground of mental illness for seeking divorce. The pursis filed on

record by the appellant husband indicates that he is not pressing the

ground of unsoundness of mind, and thus for the same reason, the

appellant husband might have omitted to mention the same to the

mediator. As can be seen from the statement in the said pursis, the

ground of unsoundness of mind is not pressed 'to avoid any

inconvenience in future'. Even though the said statement is not of

any clear indication but reasonable enough to infer that the

appellant husband was trying to save the respondent wife from

future inconvenience.

1. Furthermore, as far as the bio-data of the appellant is

concerned, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the contents

of the said bio-data are indicative enough to undermine the

truthfulness of the husband and that it seems he is in a hurry to get

remarried. In our view, the contents of the bio-data are clear

enough, but that alone cannot be a ground to infer the alleged

hurry of the husband to get divorced and remarried.

1. As far as the aspect of circulation of messages to the near

relatives and friends, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the

act of the husband amounts to diminishing and lowering the image

of the wife. In our view, this is a relevant aspect, as according to the

settled position of law, such conduct would itself amount to cruelty.

The next aspect which has weighed with the trial Court in refusing

the decree for divorce is that there is no abnormal behaviour prior

to the marriage, nor is there any averment in that regard. It is true

that there is no averment or evidence adduced to show that there

was any abnormal behaviour prior to the marriage, or that there

was any complaint regarding such behaviour from the workplace of

the respondent wife. This, in our view, may be indicative, but it is

not conclusive to infer that there was no cruelty. At times, it can

happen that erratic or abnormal behaviour is specific to a particular

person, and the respondent wife in this case may have been

behaving normally in other situations.

1. After recording such a finding, which in our view is fragile

and incorrect, the trial Court has resorted to Section 23 of the Act of

1955, and stated that the husband, by his conduct, has condoned

the act of cruelty (if any) and therefore is not entitled to a decree of

divorce. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court for recording such

finding is that the husband has not shown any reasons behind such

abnormal behaviour of the respondent wife. The respondent's

reliance on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane reported in (1975)

2 SCC 326 in support of the plea of condonation under [Section

23(1)(b)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1564283/) of the Hindu Marriage Act is equally unsustainable on the

facts of the present case. In Dastane, condonation was established

because the husband had voluntarily and knowingly resumed full

marital relations with the wife after being fully aware of her acts of

cruelty which constituted an unequivocal and conscious forgiveness

of the matrimonial offence. The factual matrix of the present case is

fundamentally different. The appellant husband returned to Akola

on 07.05.2020 and the parties have been residing separately ever

since. On the contrary, the WhatsApp messages exchanged between

the parties post-separation particularly the message of 21.03.2021

wherein the respondent sought apology and expressed remorse for

her "irrational and uncontrollable behaviour" are not indicative of

condonation; on the contrary, they evidence continuing acts of

cruelty. As held in Dastane (supra), condonation requires a

conscious and voluntary forgiveness with full knowledge of the

matrimonial offence an element entirely absent in the present case.

1. Thus for the reasons mentioned above the trial Court's

finding, in our view, apart from being fallacious, is legally unsound.

If this analogy is taken to be correct, the entire edifice of the law on

mental cruelty would crumble. The spouse who approaches the

Court on the grounds of mental cruelty is not required to justify or

show reasons for the mental cruelty being practiced on him or her.

In our view, the trial Court's conclusion falls short of legal validity

and is unsustainable. We, therefore, answer point no. 1 accordingly.

1. It seems that the trial Court has been swayed by the fact that

the appellant husband chose to withdraw the ground of

unsoundness of mind / mental disorder. The respondent's

submission that the ground of cruelty is so intrinsically connected to

the ground of mental disorder that withdrawal of the latter must

necessarily defeat the former, deserves to be rejected for more than

one reason. The reliance placed on [Mansi Mohan Chandarkar v.

Mohan Vishnu Chandarkar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32830154/) reported in 2016 SCC Online Bom

16068 in that regard is equally misplaced. In Mansi Mohan

Chandarkar, the allegations of cruelty were not independently

pleaded with specific particulars they were entirely dependent on

and derived from the allegation of mental disorder, leaving no

residual case of cruelty once the disorder ground failed. The present

case stands on an entirely different footing. In contrast, the petition

filed by the appellant contains independent and specific averments

of cruelty: the incident of jumping from a motorcycle, public

assault, biting and scratching causing bleeding injuries, abusive

phone calls, emotional blackmailing, and the WhatsApp messages

admitting irrational conduct none of which are predicated upon or

require proof of any mental disorder in the clinical sense. The

withdrawal of the ground under Section 13(1)(iii) was made, as

recorded in pursis Ex. 86, to avoid inconvenience to the respondent

not because the allegations of cruelty lacked independent substance.

Two distinct causes of action were pleaded in the petition and they

remain legally separable. Accordingly , the said decision is

distinguishable and does not advance the respondent's case.

1. In this set of facts, we are of the considered opinion that, in

spite of the fact that allegations of mental illness were withdrawn,

said allegations were not intrinsically connected with the allegations

of unsoundness of mind / mental disorder. We, therefore, answer

point number 2 accordingly.

1. Thus taking into consideration all the facts in evidence, we

are of the considered opinion that the appellant has proved that the

respondent has treated him with cruelty. He is therefore, entitled

for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, point no. 3 is

answered accordingly.

1. In view of these findings, we are of the considered opinion

that the finding record by the Family Court are erroneous, perverse

and reached conclusions which are not in consonance with the

settled position of law as well as evidence on record. The findings

and conclusions recorded, being contrary to the settled position of

law and resulting from an incorrect appreciation of the evidence,

are liable to be interfered with in appellate jurisdiction. Point no. 4

is answered accordingly.

1. One more significant fact which weighs with us is that,

admittedly, even though it has been vehemently pleaded by the

counsel for the respondent wife that there are exaggerations and

that there is no such excessive or unruly behaviour by her, the fact

remains that the respondent wife has not applied for the Restitution

of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. It is further

an admitted position that she is not residing in India. The

explanation in this regard is that she was constrained to leave the

country because the appellant husband circulated defamatory

messages in the society, and that an offence under the Passports Act has been registered against her, does not appeal to us. Had it been

the real intention of the respondent wife to cohabit with the

husband, she could have initiated the litigation for restitution by

residing in India. The respondent wife's protestation of her

willingness to cohabit with the appellant husband finds no support

in her own conduct. As held by the Supreme Court in [Amutha v.

A.R. Subramanian](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/153232273/) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 3822, the court

must assess the real intention of the parties from their actions, not

merely from their pleadings and where one spouse files multiple

litigations and simultaneously claims a desire to resume matrimony,

such conduct is self-contradictory and indicative of an intention to

harass rather than reconcile. In the present case, the respondent

wife has not filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which itself is a telling

indicator of her true intention. The two litigations initiated by her

Defamation Case No. 1749/2023 and Special Civil Suit No.

118/2023 further reinforce the inference that her opposition to the

divorce is not animated by any genuine desire for reconciliation but

is calculated solely to prevent the husband from obtaining relief.

The Special Civil Suit No. 118/2023 was subsequently dismissed for

non-prosecution on 12.12.2024. As held by this Court in [Yogendra

Bhoir v. Prema Bhoir](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102794613/) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 4997, the

combination of long separation, continuous litigation, and complete

breakdown of matrimony renders continuation of such marriage

itself an act of cruelty upon the petitioning spouse. The respondent's

conduct, viewed in its totality, leads to no other conclusion than

that the respondent wife has been practicing mental cruelty upon

the appellant husband.

1. An additional fact which assumes significance is that one of

the litigations initiated by the respondent wife, i.e., Special Civil

Suit No. 118 of 2023, was dismissed for non-prosecution on

12.12.2024. Thus, it is clear that the respondent wife is only

interested in preventing the husband from obtaining a decree of

divorce and is not intending to reside with him.

1. The settled legal position, as consistently enunciated by the

Supreme Court and various High Courts, is that mental cruelty

cannot be assessed in isolation by dissecting individual incidents in

a piecemeal or fragmented manner. As held in [Samar Ghosh v. Jaya

Ghosh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/) (2007) 4 SCC 511, mental cruelty must be assessed from the

cumulative conduct of the parties, and even a reasonable

apprehension of harm without any physical violence is sufficient to

constitute cruelty, provided the conduct is grave enough to make

cohabitation impossible. This principle was further reinforced in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558, where the Supreme

Court held that an adamant refusal to grant divorce, coupled with

continued harassment, itself amounts to mental cruelty. The

Supreme Court in Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni 2023 (6)

Mh.LJ. 534 categorically condemned the hyper-technical approach

adopted by courts in declining divorce, holding that where both

parties have moved on and the marital bond has irreversibly broken

down, prolonging the agony of a dead marriage serves no legal or

social purpose. In the present case, the trial Court fell into precisely

this error by requiring corroborative witnesses for incidents of

cruelty occurring within the four walls of a matrimonial home. It

further erred in demanding that the husband show reasons for the

wife's abnormal behaviour and in rejecting admitted WhatsApp

messages on technical metadata grounds all of which constitute an

approach that is contrary to the settled position of law.

1. Thus the approach of respondent wife, in our view, itself

amounts to mental cruelty, since the husband has been suffering

immensely due to the erratic and abnormal behavior of the

respondent wife. In that view of the matter, the findings of the trial

Court cannot be sustained and warrant interference in appellate

jurisdiction.

1. We therefore pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed by the

Family Court, Akola in Petition No. A-98/2021, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The said petition bearing Petition No. A-98/2021 filed by the

appellant herein is allowed, and it is declared that the marriage

between the parties, solemnized on 09.03.2019, is dissolved.
(iv) Decree be drawn accordingly.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

1. After the pronouncement of judgment and in view of the fact

that the appeal being allowed and the marriage between the parties

stands dissolved, the learned counsel for the respondent wife

appearing through video conferencing prays for staying the effect

and operation of the impugned judgment.

1. Mr. J. B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant husband,

however, vehemently opposes the request and states that once the

judgment is pronounced, this Court becomes functus officio.

1. However, having regard to the fact that the petition before

the Family Court filed by the appellant husband was dismissed and

then marital relationship between the parties subsisted, we are of

the view that the judgment and decree passed by us need to be

stayed for a further period of four weeks so that the respondent can

agitate her legitimate right before the appropriate forum.

1. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree in

Family Court Appeal No. 46 of 2023 is stayed for a further period of

four weeks, however, after the expiration of the said period, the

said stay would be vacated automatically.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Shubham