# Neetesh Kumar Pal v. Smt. Ramendree Pal

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 886
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 252 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Satya Veer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neetesh-kumar-pal-v-smt-ramendree-pal-54028
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that it is the obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and that he cannot be permitted to
plead financial constraints so long as he is capable of earning. The Court thus made the husband's
liability to maintain contingent upon his actual capacity to earn.

14A. In the present case, the material on record clearly establishes that the opposite party has
suffered a grievous firearm injury, with a pellet entangled in his spinal cord, and medical advice
indicates that any surgical intervention carries a serious risk of paralysis. Owing to such physical
incapacity, the opposite party has been rendered incapable of earning his livelihood. It is apparent
from the record that the said physical incapacity was caused by the revisionist's side.

15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not
committed any manifest illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned order. The
Trial Court neither failed to exercise its jurisdiction nor exceeded the same. Consequently, the
revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

16. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 886
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

First Appeal No. 252 of 2025

Neetesh Kumar Pal ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ramendree Pal ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Family Court erred in law and on facts in refusing to dissolve the marriage on
the ground of cruelty, despite the existence of prior judicial findings that the wife had instituted false criminal
proceedings u/s 498A IPC and had failed to substantiate allegations of dowry demand and neglect, and
whether such conduct constituted mental cruelty sufficient to warrant a decree of divorce.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 498-A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 125 - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - s. 3, 5, 6 - Cruelty - Matrimonial ground - Relevancy of Evidence - Burden of Proof -
Maintenance - The instant First Appeal arose out of a judgment and decree passed by the Family
Court whereby the petition filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground
of cruelty was dismissed - The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu
rites and customs, and disputes subsequently arose leading to separation - The wife instituted
criminal proceedings u/s 498A IPC and allied provisions alleging dowry demand and harassment,
and also initiated proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance - In the maintenance
1 All. Neetesh Kumar Pal Vs. Smt. Ramendree Pal
887
proceedings, the court recorded findings that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were
not substantiated, and such findings were affirmed in revision - Relying upon these prior judicial
determinations, the husband instituted the matrimonial petition before the Family Court
contending that the filing of false criminal cases, and the resultant social stigma and mental
agony, constituted mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage - The Family Court,
however, by judgment dated 24.01.2025 declined to grant a decree of divorce, holding that
cruelty was not established to the requisite legal standard, which order was assailed before the
High Court in the instant appeal. (E-11)

Held:. The appellant works as a cook in the Army, posted at Bengaluru - Respondent possesses educational
qualification of being double MA in English - In this context, there is respectful agreement with the view taken
in Smt. Tripti Singh (infra), where the co-ordinate Bench found that appellant therein holding Doctorate of
Philosophy (Ph.D.), had made false allegation and caused her husband and his family members (her in-laws)
to be taken into custody - Such conduct would gives rise to apprehension that it may not be safe for the other
party to live and have matrimonial relationship with the wife - Thus, impugned judgment is reversed - On the
petition presented before the Family Court, the marriage solemnized on 2nd July, 2015, is dissolved by decree
of divorce on the ground of cruelty - In view of prior findings that parties spent precious little time together
and that also not found to the contrary in impugned judgment that husband-appellant was asked to live in
respondent's parental house, thus, Court decline to exercise discretion to direct permanent alimony -
According, appeal allowed. [Paras 10 to 12]

Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659; Samar Ghosh
v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 - referred to

Smt. Tripti Singh v. Ajat Shatru, First Appeal No. 251 of 2013, judgment dated 17th September, 2024
- followed

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872

List of Keywords
First Appeal; Decree of divorce; Dissolution of marriage; Family Court; Mental cruelty; s. 125 Cr.P.C.; Interim
Maintenance; Criminal revision; s. 498A IPC; Dowry demand; False implication; Disinterest of appellant in
relation to offspring; Matrimonial relationship; Reasonable apprehension; Appeal allowed; Decline to award
permanent alimony.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. - 252 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2025 passed by Family Court, Jhansi in Misc. Cases / 394 / 2020

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Saurabh Sachan

Adv. for the Respondent:
Shyam Bahadur
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The first appeal stands preferred by aggrieved husband in the marriage. The Family Court
on judgment dated 24th January, 2025 refused to accept appellant's petition for dissolution of the
marriage. In other words, it stood dismissed. Mr. Saurabh Sachan, learned advocate appears on
behalf of appellant-husband and Mr. Shyam Bahadur, learned

2. We had required the registry to make English translation of impugned judgment as well as
judgment dated 22nd September, 2017, earlier passed by a different learned Judge of the Family
Court, rejecting the petition of respondent-wife claiming interim maintenance under section 125 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have perused both judgments. We have also heard learned
advocates for the parties.

3. It appears from impugned judgment, the Family Court disbelieved appellant's case because
he was found to have separated from respondent on 25th December 2015, when she was two
months pregnant. Said Court found appellant had admitted that neither did he know for how many
days his daughter was in intensive care unit (ICU) after birth nor what disease she was suffering
from. He never attended his daughter's birthdays. On 25th May, 2019, when respondent went to
Bengaluru, appellant did not take her to his room because he was staying with other roommates
(colleagues). Having found so, the Family Court proceeded to say, inter alia, as in paragraphs 19
and 20 of the judgment, English translation of which are reproduced below.

19. The cruelty must be of such a nature as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the
relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible
for them to live together without mental agony. Cruelty generally does not involve a single act but
a series of acts extended over a period of time. The cruelty inflicted may take many forms and must
be such as to create an apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it is dangerous to live with the
at-faulting party. The standard of proof required is a preponderance of probability and not
"beyond all reasonable doubt" as in criminal proceedings. A particular type of statement and
conduct may not amount to cruelty in all cases. It depends on the status of the spouse and the
environment in which they live.

20-In the present suit, the extended series of cruelty-based acts described by the
petitioner, other than the filing of a criminal case for dowry by the opposite party, is not such
that it shows the intensity of cruelty and harsh conduct and it becomes impossible for the spouse
to live with each other.

(emphasis supplied)

4. Contention of appellant before us is that earlier, respondent had petitioned for interim
maintenance under section 125. Her petition was rejected on aforesaid judgment dated 22nd
September, 2017. Facts were found by the Court to so reject. The judgment, along with rejection of
the criminal revision directed against it by the learned single Judge on order dated 23rd July,
2021 [Criminal Revision no. 9 of 2018 (Smt. Ramendri Pal vs. State of U.P. and others)] were
both tendered in evidence by him in the dissolution of marriage proceeding. There is no discussion
in impugned judgment to find to the contrary. As such the learned Judge erred on facts and there be
1 All. Neetesh Kumar Pal Vs. Smt. Ramendree Pal
889
reversal of the judgment, to declare dissolution of the marriage. Respondent's contention on the
other hand is reliance on impugned judgment, on the facts found as stated therein.

5. The earlier learned Judge in the Family Court, who delivered said judgment dated 22nd
September, 2017 while considering facts in issue relevant to award of interim maintenance had
framed, amongst others, issue nos. 4 and 5, reproduced below.

"4- Did the opposite party intentionally neglect to support the petitioner and refused to
support her?

5- Does the petitioner have reasonable and justifiable grounds for living separately from
the opposite party?"

The learned Judge answered the issues in favour of appellant and against respondent. The
answer was dependent on finding of the facts. Here it is necessary for us to refer to section 3,
interpretation clause in Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since repealed but as applicable on making of
said judgment. The section gives interpretation of, inter alia, 'fact', 'relevant', 'facts in issue',
'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved'. Sections 5 and 6 provide for evidence that may be given of
facts in issue, relevant facts and relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Here we may
say, marital discord having caused separation and respondent thereafter seeking interim
maintenance would give rise to finding of facts in deciding her claim, which can be relevant facts
in the continuing marital discord giving rise to appellant's petition for dissolution of the marriage.

6. Having said as above, the learned Judge in dealing with the maintenance claim is seen to
have found respondent's allegation that appellant had tendered written apology and having
promised to treat her well in future, not proved. Appellant had proved that the parties came to know
each other through the internet. While he stayed in a hotel, the parties got married and respondent
went to her paternal home to convince her parents to accept him. She alleged, there was subsequent
wedding ceremony arranged by her side, in which photographs were taken, also found as not
proved. The marriage having been solemnized on 2nd July, 2017 in fact situation as found by the
learned Judge, led to further conclusion that her subsequent allegation of dowry demand at Rs.
10,00,000/-, was false. The learned Judge found, precious little time together was spent by the
parties. In addition, respondent had made allegation that appellant was carrying out with a girl,
which allegation also she could not prove.

7. It is undisputed that respondent caused initiation of a criminal case against appellant
carrying accusation invoking section 498A in Indian Penal Code, 1860. Clauses (a) and (b) of the
explanation under the section gives meaning of what is cruelty as provided therein. It includes
wilful conduct as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health or such conduct with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand. Respondent did not even produce let alone tender a police complaint,
at the hearing of her maintenance claim. Having thereafter perused impugned judgment we accept
submission made on behalf of appellant that the earlier judgment and order in criminal revision,
produced in evidence by appellant, were not even looked at. In this connection a passage from
English translation of paragraph 5 in impugned judgment is reproduced below.
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"5. List of documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner viz. from Paper No. 52 C 1/1
to 52 C 1/6, respectively, photocopy of railway ticket, photocopies related to Sharda Health Care
Medical, copy of Facebook status, affidavit and copy of evidence of petitioner and opposite party in
case no. 131/2016 and copy of decision and copy of Criminal Revision No. 9/2018,....."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Said judgment dated 22nd September, 2017 contains aforesaid findings on facts.
Respondent had brought it for revision to this Court. As aforesaid, on order dated 23rd July, 2021
(supra) the criminal revision petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659, paragraph 22 said that
the revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate Court by
virtue of the provisions contained in section 401 in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, since
repealed. The repealed Act was in operation, when said earlier judgment was passed and order
dated 23rd July, 2021 (supra) made, dismissing the criminal revision therefrom. It follows, no
interference by the High Court on findings of fact relevant to the facts in issue not considered was
erroneous omission of the learned Judge in delivering impugned judgment. Contention of appellant
on facts based on said judgment dated 22nd September, 2017 thus bears substance. We come back
to impugned judgment and discussion of additional facts regarding birth of the daughter and
petitioner's disinterest. The learned Judge in passing impugned judgment construed those facts in
isolation, to give the reasoning as in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment. The English translation
stands reproduced above. It must be remembered, disinterest of appellant in relation to offspring,
contended by respondent before the Family Court, cannot amount to or be considered good defence
to allegation of cruelty against her.

9. On behalf of appellant there was reliance on view taken by co-ordinate Bench on judgment dated
17th September, 2024 in First Appeal no. 251 of 2013 (Smt. Tripti Singh vs. Ajat Shatru). The
Family Court had earlier by said judgment dated 22nd September, 2017 found false complaint was made
by respondent against appellant. He was taken into custody. In paragraph 17 of impugned judgment, the
Family Court referred to the fact but did not thereby find sufficient proof on the allegation of cruelty made
by appellant against respondent. Hence, reliance by appellant on view taken in Smt. Tripti Singh (supra).
Co-ordinate Bench in Smt. Tripti Singh (supra) had considered appeal of the wife against judgment dated
22nd February, 2013 of the Family Court dissolving the marriage on ground of cruelty. The Bench
considered several judgments of the Supreme Court for declarations of law on cruelty. One of the
discussed cases was Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, wherein the Supreme
Court gave several instances of what might amount to mental cruelty. Several other landmark judgments
of the Supreme Court declaring the law on cruelty were discussed and relevant paragraphs quoted in the
judgment. Having done that co-ordinate Bench stated its view in paragraph 23 of the judgment.
Reproduced below is a passage therefrom.

"23.... In the context of a Hindu marriage, one may continue to describe the parents of
the spouse as parents-in-laws, at the same time for the act of cruelty committed, once arrest of
parents of a spouse is caused on false allegations or allegations found to be false in the course of a
criminal trial, no further or strict proof of cruelty may be prescribed or applied by Courts. Those
who were arrested were not strangers or third parties. The victims of the reckless and false accusation
1 All. Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Radhey Shyam Gupta
891
made by the appellant were the closest family members of the respondent i.e. his parents. Once that
cruel act was committed, in the context of the educational and social background of the parties, it could
never be resisted that the respondent was meted out most cruel behaviour in which he may have
reasonably felt unsafe to cohabit with the appellant. It would be completely another case where
allegation of demand of dowry is found true. However, divorce sought being a civil proceeding, everything
apart, its institution may never have offered the respondent spouse (in that proceeding) motivation to get
even with her spouse-by lodging a false criminal case. That act committed by the appellant led to loss of
reputation and standing of the respondent and his family, in his society. Having suffered that, the
respondent cannot be expected to cope with that and revive his matrimonial relations. As noted above,
both parties being well educated, the respondent holding Master in Business Administration (M.B.A.) and
the appellant holding Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.), loss of reputation suffered by the respondent on
the false prosecution pressed by the appellant is seen to have caused cruelty to the extent that it may
create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it may not be safe for him and his
family to live in a matrimonial discord relationship with the present appellant as that occurrence would
always remain exposed to the risk of similar false prosecution etc." (emphasis supplied)

10. We see that appellant before us works as a cook in the Army, posted at Bengaluru.
Respondent possesses educational qualification of being double MA in English. In this context we
are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Smt. Tripti Singh (supra), where the coordinate Bench found that appellant therein holding Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.), had made
false allegation and caused her husband and his family members (her in-laws) to be taken into
custody. Such conduct would and gives rise to apprehension that it may not be safe for the other
party to live and have matrimonial relationship with the wife.

11. For reasons aforesaid, impugned judgment is reversed. On the petition presented before the
Family Court, the marriage solemnized on 2nd July, 2015, is dissolved by decree of divorce on the
ground of cruelty. Considering there is earlier finding of fact that parties spent precious little time
together and also further finding of fact, not found to the contrary in impugned judgment that
husband-appellant was asked to live in respondent's parental house, we are not moved to exercise
discretion to direct permanent alimony.

12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 891
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 455 of 2023

Om Prakash Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam Gupta ...Respondent