{"id":7773,"date":"2010-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-16T03:40:50","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T22:10:50","slug":"sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010<\/div>\n
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,\n                JABALPUR\n\n\nDIVISION BENCH:                   Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh,\n                                                          &\n                                  Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, JJ.\n\n\n                 FIRST APPEAL NO.182 OF 2002\n\n                             Sanjay Agrawal.\n                                   Vs.\n                            Smt. Renu Agrawal.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Jagtendra Prasad, lawyer counsel for the appellant.\n\nShri Om Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       (Delivered on this the 30th day of September, 2010)<\/p>\n
PER: N.K..GUPTA,J.\n<\/p>\n
               This first appeal has been preferred by the<\/p>\n
appellant        against       the     judgment         and      decree       dated<\/p>\n
11\/12\/2001 passed in Hindu Marriage Case No.19A\/1998<\/p>\n
by the Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad by<\/p>\n
which the application filed by the appellant under Section<\/p>\n
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
to as the ‘Act, 1955’) was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
2.             It is admitted that the marriage of the appellant<\/p>\n
and the respondent took place on 16\/2\/1997 at Itarsi.<\/p>\n
They lived at Itarsi for two months after their marriage.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the respondent visited to the appellant’s
\n                                2<\/span>
\n                                                 FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
house in the month of April, 1997 after her short stay of<\/p>\n
few days at her parents’ house. In her second visit she<\/p>\n
lived upto July, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
3.         The appellant has filed an application under<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Act, 1955 before the trial Court on the<\/p>\n
ground that, in July, 1997 the respondent left the house<\/p>\n
of the appellant to perform the ceremony of Raksha<\/p>\n
Bandhan and thereafter she did not come back. Her<\/p>\n
behaviour with the appellant and his family members was<\/p>\n
discourteous. She was in the habit to insult the appellant<\/p>\n
and his family members. She was quarrelsome. She<\/p>\n
insisted upon the appellant to live separately from the<\/p>\n
family, though she was fully aware of the fact that the<\/p>\n
appellant was a member of the joint Hindu family and he<\/p>\n
did not have any capital to start his own business. The<\/p>\n
appellant tried to convince her that it is not possible for<\/p>\n
him   to   live   separately   from   the   family,   then   the<\/p>\n
respondent threatened to lodge a case for dowry demand.<\/p>\n
In July 1997, the respondent left the house of the<\/p>\n
appellant with a declaration that she will return back to<\/p>\n
the appellant’s house only when he will start living<\/p>\n
separately from his family. The appellant tried his level<\/p>\n
best to bring the respondent back. Even at Burhar the<\/p>\n
appellant and his father tried for conciliation with the<\/p>\n
help of some reputed persons of the society, but the
\n                              3<\/span>
\n                                             FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
efforts of the appellant remained fruitless. Ultimately, in<\/p>\n
the year 1998 the appellant filed an application under<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Act, 1955 before the trial Court. Again<\/p>\n
in the year 2000, he amended his application to the effect<\/p>\n
that the respondent has lodged an FIR under Section<\/p>\n
498-A of IPC against him and his family members, which<\/p>\n
amounts to be a cruelty against the appellant.<\/p>\n
4.        The respondent in her reply denied all the<\/p>\n
allegations made in the application. She has pleaded that<\/p>\n
it was impressed upon her parents that the appellant is<\/p>\n
an owner of “Sanjay Trading Company” which is a big<\/p>\n
shop of grocery and general stores, but the appellant did<\/p>\n
not have any stand in the family. The appellant had lost<\/p>\n
his mother in the past and at the time of his marriage<\/p>\n
stepmother was there whose behaviour was worst with<\/p>\n
the respondent. She used to torture her in every manner.<\/p>\n
Two younger brothers of the appellant were already<\/p>\n
married and the appellant was elder one. She never<\/p>\n
insisted for separation, on the contrary she was tortured<\/p>\n
for demand of dowry, and therefore, she was thrown out<\/p>\n
of the family. In reply to the amendment, she had pleaded<\/p>\n
that when she received a summon of the present case,<\/p>\n
she thought that no conciliation is possible at present,<\/p>\n
hence she lodged an FIR against the appellant and his
\n                                 4<\/span>
\n                                                 FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
family   members     on   the   basis   of   factual   position,<\/p>\n
therefore, she had requested to dismiss the application.<\/p>\n
5.          After considering the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
parties and pleadings of the case, the learned 2nd<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge has found that the allegations of<\/p>\n
cruelty were not proved, and therefore, the appellant is<\/p>\n
not entitled to get divorce from the respondent, hence<\/p>\n
the application filed under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 by<\/p>\n
the appellant has been dismissed by the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
6.          Before hearing the final arguments in the<\/p>\n
present matter, reconciliation proceedings were held by<\/p>\n
this Court, but they could not produce results, thereafter<\/p>\n
we have heard both the parties at length through their<\/p>\n
learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
7.          Learned counsel for the appellant, in nutshell,<\/p>\n
has submitted that the behaviour of the respondent was<\/p>\n
worst. She was in habit to insult the appellant and his<\/p>\n
family members. Her father was informed in April, 1997<\/p>\n
regarding her behaviour and activities, but it was an<\/p>\n
effect-less effort. When she came back in the appellant’s<\/p>\n
family for the second time, she repeated similar activities.<\/p>\n
She was insisting upon the appellant to live separately<\/p>\n
from his family members. The appellant and his family<\/p>\n
members tried for reconciliation with the help of some
\n                                5<\/span>
\n                                                FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
reputed persons of the society at Burhar, but such efforts<\/p>\n
became fruitless. Learned counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
further submitted that the respondent had left her<\/p>\n
husband’s house herself and she deserted the appellant<\/p>\n
unnecessarily. At present relations of the parties have<\/p>\n
come down to irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and<\/p>\n
therefore,    the   learned   Court   below   has    erred    in<\/p>\n
dismissing the divorce application of the appellant.<\/p>\n
8.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent has submitted that there was no cruelty<\/p>\n
proved from the side of the respondent. Actually the<\/p>\n
stepmother     of   the   appellant   was   bitter   with    the<\/p>\n
respondent. The respondent in her statement before the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court has explained the cruelty of her<\/p>\n
mother-in-law in detail, and therefore, the learned 2nd<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed the<\/p>\n
divorce application of the appellant. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondent has further submitted that the appellant<\/p>\n
did not take any ground of desertion before the learned<\/p>\n
Court below, and therefore, no issue was framed on the<\/p>\n
ground of desertion, hence the appellant cannot raise<\/p>\n
such a new ground before this Court at this stage. He has<\/p>\n
further submitted that there is no ground mentioned in<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Act, 1955 regarding “irretrievable<\/p>\n
breakdown of marriage”. It is the prerogative of the
\n                                   6<\/span>
\n                                                     FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
of India to provide such relief on such basis, but since<\/p>\n
there is no ground in Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no<\/p>\n
decree of divorce can be passed on the basis of that<\/p>\n
ground.\n<\/p>\n
9.          On perusal of the record of the Court below, it<\/p>\n
is clear that the appellant did not take any ground of<\/p>\n
desertion    in   his   divorce       application.   Actually   the<\/p>\n
marriage of the parties took place on 16\/2\/1997 and the<\/p>\n
appellant has filed the divorce application on 22\/7\/1998<\/p>\n
i.e. within two years of their marriage, and therefore,<\/p>\n
ground of desertion under Section 13(1) (ib) of the Act,<\/p>\n
1955 was not available to the appellant, hence no issue<\/p>\n
was framed in the trial. Learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
has relied upon the judgment of this Court i.e. “Manju<\/p>\n
Rajak Vs. Parvinder Singh” [2010 (2) MPLJ 543], but<\/p>\n
since no ground for desertion is pleaded in the divorce<\/p>\n
application, the above cited case is of no help to the<\/p>\n
appellant at present. Under these circumstances, at this<\/p>\n
stage “desertion” cannot be considered to be a ground of<\/p>\n
divorce.\n<\/p>\n
10.         Regarding cruelty, if the evidence adduced is<\/p>\n
examined, then it would be clear that the appellant has<\/p>\n
failed to prove the cruelty of the respondent. Appellant<\/p>\n
examined only three witnesses in his favour including
\n                                     7<\/span>
\n                                                         FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
himself.   There    is   a    material       contradiction      in   the<\/p>\n
statement of these three witnesses namely Sanjay (PW-1),<\/p>\n
Udit Narayan (PW-2) and Govind Prasad (PW-3). Also<\/p>\n
there is contradiction between the statements of these<\/p>\n
three witnesses with the pleading made by the appellant.<\/p>\n
Udit Narayan (PW-2) is the friend of the appellant, who<\/p>\n
quoted one incident that when the appellant directed the<\/p>\n
respondent to make tea for him, then she refused to make<\/p>\n
tea. But there is no such pleading in the appellant’s<\/p>\n
application. It is true that every incident of cruelty cannot<\/p>\n
be pleaded, but even the appellant Sanjay (PW-1) did not<\/p>\n
say   anything     about     this       incident   in   his   evidence,<\/p>\n
therefore, it is clear that the incident quoted by Udit<\/p>\n
Narayan (PW-2) is an after thought. However, it is clear<\/p>\n
from the evidence adduced by the parties that younger<\/p>\n
brothers of the appellant were already married, and<\/p>\n
therefore, it is possible that the kitchen was under the<\/p>\n
control of stepmother and two sister-in-law of the<\/p>\n
appellant, hence the respondent was unable to make tea<\/p>\n
for the friend of the appellant. It was for the appellant to<\/p>\n
observe the reason for such denial. It seems that he knew<\/p>\n
the reason, and therefore, he did not say anything in his<\/p>\n
evidence regarding this fact.\n<\/p>\n
11.        Similarly, Sanjay (PW-1) and Udit Narayan<\/p>\n
(PW-2) have stated before the trial Court that when they
\n                              8<\/span>
\n                                              FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
reached Burhar to bring the respondent, the respondent<\/p>\n
did not permit them to stay in her house. She had stated<\/p>\n
that her father is not at home and till then they have to<\/p>\n
manage their own stay. The conduct of the respondent<\/p>\n
seems to be reasonable, as she was under no moral<\/p>\n
obligation to accommodate her husband and his friend as<\/p>\n
to be a guest at her parent’s house. Also with such<\/p>\n
strained relations, there was no possibility that the<\/p>\n
respondent could show her affection in permitting them<\/p>\n
to stay in the house in the absence of her father. It was<\/p>\n
for her to talk with the appellant and his friend and it was<\/p>\n
possible that they could assault her, therefore, the<\/p>\n
conduct of the respondent in such particular instance<\/p>\n
seems to be reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
12.       Sanjay (PW-1) and his father Govind Prasad<\/p>\n
(PW-3) have stated before the trial Court in a different<\/p>\n
manner. Sanjay says that the respondent was in the habit<\/p>\n
of adding too much chillies in the food, whereas his<\/p>\n
father alleges regarding addition of more salt in the food.<\/p>\n
He did not say anything regarding addition of chillies.<\/p>\n
Similarly, Sanjay (PW-1) did not complain regarding her<\/p>\n
behaviour for the first two months of the beginning,<\/p>\n
whereas his father Govind Prasad (PW-3) informed that in<\/p>\n
first two months, behaviour of the respondent was<\/p>\n
discourteous and quarrelsome, and therefore, the father
\n                              9<\/span>
\n                                             FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
of the respondent was called and he took his daughter to<\/p>\n
his house with the assurance that he would convince his<\/p>\n
daughter. The appellant did not say anything for first two<\/p>\n
months of his marriage. He admits that in that period she<\/p>\n
did not refuse for having cohabition. There is no pleading<\/p>\n
in the application of the appellant about the fact that the<\/p>\n
father of the respondent was called and the respondent<\/p>\n
was sent back with her father with some complaints. In<\/p>\n
such circumstances, the evidence of Govind Prasad<\/p>\n
(PW-3) prima facie cannot be accepted on the basis that<\/p>\n
his statement is contrary to the pleadings, but the<\/p>\n
respondent Renu Agrawal (DW-1) in her statement<\/p>\n
informed the trial Court that she was sent back with her<\/p>\n
father due to some dowry demand, therefore, it seems<\/p>\n
that evidence given by witness Govind Prasad is correct<\/p>\n
to the fact that the respondent was sent back after two<\/p>\n
months of her marriage after calling her father. But, if<\/p>\n
the reason was so, which is stated by Govind Prasad<\/p>\n
(PW-3), then what was the problem to the appellant that<\/p>\n
he has hidden this fact in his statement and in his<\/p>\n
pleadings, therefore, the act of the appellant indicates<\/p>\n
that it is possible that the respondent was sent back with<\/p>\n
her father to create pressure of dowry demand, hence<\/p>\n
being guilty conscious, the appellant has no cheek to say<\/p>\n
anything regarding that event.\n<\/p>\n
                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
13.       Renu Agrawal (DW-1) in her statement stated<\/p>\n
so many things about her torture in the appellant’s<\/p>\n
house. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she<\/p>\n
alleged wildly without any basis and no such pleadings<\/p>\n
were made by the respondent in her reply to the<\/p>\n
application. He further submits that no such suggestions<\/p>\n
were given regarding such instances to appellant Sanjay<\/p>\n
(PW-1) and his father Govind Prasad (PW-3) in their cross<\/p>\n
examination. It is true that the respondent did not plead<\/p>\n
regarding such instances about the cruelty of her mother-<\/p>\n
in-law. It is also true that no such example was put<\/p>\n
forward in cross examination of Sanjay (PW-1) and his<\/p>\n
father Govind Prasad (PW-3), but the conduct of the<\/p>\n
respondent is clear that she has lodged an FIR for<\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC against<\/p>\n
the appellant and his family members after receiving<\/p>\n
summons of the divorce application, and therefore, she<\/p>\n
kept silence about the torture caused to her, hence the<\/p>\n
allegations made by the respondent cannot be thrown<\/p>\n
away in such a manner. It is clear from her conduct that<\/p>\n
some of the allegations made by her are correct. She has<\/p>\n
stated before the learned Court below that her mother-in-<\/p>\n
law prohibited her to make physical relation with the<\/p>\n
appellant in her second visit and therefore, she did not<\/p>\n
have such relation with the appellant in her second visit.
\n                             11<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                             FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
The appellant admits that there was no problem in<\/p>\n
cohabitation with the respondent in her first visit, but in<\/p>\n
the second visit she was denying to have such relations.<\/p>\n
14.       The respondent lived with the appellant only<\/p>\n
for four months after the marriage in her two visits, and<\/p>\n
therefore, in such a small period, she could not do such<\/p>\n
alleged cruelty, which can be a ground for divorce. It is<\/p>\n
clear that she was thrown out from the family twice.<\/p>\n
15.       Both the parties are alleging the cruelty<\/p>\n
against each other, therefore, to know the actual<\/p>\n
controversy, there was a need to examine an independent<\/p>\n
witness before the Court below. It is admitted by the<\/p>\n
appellant that he and his father informed these facts to<\/p>\n
some reputed persons of the society at Burhar, and<\/p>\n
therefore, such reputed persons, who were not influenced<\/p>\n
by father of the respondent could be the independent<\/p>\n
witnesses to tell the actual controversy between the<\/p>\n
parties, but no such witness is examined before the Court<\/p>\n
below and even no explanation has been given for such<\/p>\n
non-examination.\n<\/p>\n
16.       Learned counsel for the appellant submits that<\/p>\n
it was the duty of the respondent to examine such<\/p>\n
witnesses, but such submission cannot be accepted,<\/p>\n
because cruelty of the respondent was alleged by the<\/p>\n
appellant in his application, hence it was for him to prove
\n                               12<\/span>
\n                                                  FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
this fact against the respondent and if he has proved the<\/p>\n
same,   then    it   would   be    the   responsibility   of   the<\/p>\n
respondent to rebut it. Unfortunately, the allegations<\/p>\n
made by the various witnesses of the appellant are<\/p>\n
contradictory amongst each other and also contradictory<\/p>\n
to the pleadings. In such circumstances, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that either the allegations made by the appellant are<\/p>\n
correct or the allegations made by the respondent are not<\/p>\n
correct, therefore, the learned Court below was correct<\/p>\n
in holding that the appellant could not prove the cruelty<\/p>\n
of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
17.          Learned counsel for the appellant has placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court in the case “Suman Kapur Vs. Sudhir Kapur”,<\/p>\n
[(2009) 1 SCC 422] and “U. Swetha Vs. State”,<\/p>\n
[(2009) 6 SCC 757], in which cruelty was considered by<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Apex Court. But, it is clear from the above<\/p>\n
two judgments, that cruelty can be assessed only on the<\/p>\n
basis of bundle of facts in each case, and therefore, when<\/p>\n
the case of the appellant is not established on factual<\/p>\n
aspect, then the above dictum are of no help to the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
18.          Learned counsel for the appellant has further<\/p>\n
submitted the respondent lodged an FIR for commission<\/p>\n
of offence under Section 498-A of IPC after two years of
\n                              13<\/span>
\n                                               FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
the marriage against the appellant and his family<\/p>\n
members, and therefore, it amounts to be a cruelty. This<\/p>\n
contention of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted. It is very much clear from the record that the<\/p>\n
respondent did not lodge any FIR till filing of divorce<\/p>\n
application by the appellant, and therefore, by her such<\/p>\n
conduct, no ground of cruelty was available at the time of<\/p>\n
filing of divorce application. She has every right to file an<\/p>\n
FIR to express her grievances against the appellant and<\/p>\n
his family members, and therefore, subsequent FIR after<\/p>\n
filing of the divorce application does not create any<\/p>\n
ground of cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
19.        Learned counsel for the appellant in the<\/p>\n
alternate submits that since July 1997 the respondent is<\/p>\n
not living with the appellant and so many reconciliation<\/p>\n
proceedings took place between them, but the same were<\/p>\n
fruitless. The appellant is deprived of the company of his<\/p>\n
wife since last 13 years, and therefore, it is a case of<\/p>\n
irretrievable breakdown of marriage, hence a decree of<\/p>\n
divorce be given on this count. In support of his<\/p>\n
contention, he has placed reliance on the following<\/p>\n
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court:-<\/p>\n
(i)    “Sanghamitra Ghose Vs. Kajal Kumar Ghose”,
\n       (2007) 2 SCC 220.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   “Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy”,
\n       (2005) 7 SCC 353.\n<\/p>\n
                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
(iii) “Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli”, (2006) 4 SCC 558.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) “Madhuri Aswani Vs. Arjundas Aswani”, 2007(3)
\n       MPLJ 550.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the appellant further submits<\/p>\n
that in all above judgments, decree of divorce was<\/p>\n
granted in such cases where it was found that the<\/p>\n
marriage of the parties is broken and it was not possible<\/p>\n
that they could live together with each other, then decree<\/p>\n
of divorce was given.\n<\/p>\n
20.       However, in the above cited judgments, the<\/p>\n
case of “Naveen Kohli” (supra) is most important, in<\/p>\n
which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no such<\/p>\n
ground regarding irretrievable breakdown of marriage is<\/p>\n
available in Section 13 of the Act, 1955, and therefore, it<\/p>\n
should   be   a   statutory   ground   and   without   such<\/p>\n
amendment in the Act no decree of divorce can be<\/p>\n
passed. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has<\/p>\n
advised that legislature must consider the opinion of their<\/p>\n
Lordships and to make such provision in the Hindu<\/p>\n
Marriage Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
21.       In the case of “Sanghamitra Ghosh” (supra)<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the judgment of<\/p>\n
“Naveen Kohli” (supra) and has expressed the opinion<\/p>\n
that though there is no ground mentioned in Section 13<\/p>\n
of the Act, 1955, however the Apex Court can exercise
\n                                  15<\/span>
\n                                                     FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
the   jurisdiction      given    under    Article    142   of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India, and therefore, in Sanghamitra’<\/p>\n
case the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted decree of<\/p>\n
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of<\/p>\n
marriage.\n<\/p>\n
22.         The dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court in the Sanghamitra’s case (supra) and Naveen<\/p>\n
Kohli’s case (supra), taken jointly, then it would be clear<\/p>\n
that since there is no ground available regarding<\/p>\n
“irretrievable breakdown of marriage” in Section 13 of<\/p>\n
the Act, 1955, no decree of divorce can be given in<\/p>\n
absence of such statutory provisions, but decree of<\/p>\n
divorce can be given with the jurisdiction of Article 142<\/p>\n
of the Constitution of India. But no such jurisdiction is<\/p>\n
available   to   this    Court    under    Article   142   of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India, hence in absence of any provision in<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no decree of divorce can be<\/p>\n
passed by this Court on the ground of “irretrievable<\/p>\n
breakdown of marriage”.\n<\/p>\n
23.         In the light of the above discussions, it is clear<\/p>\n
that no decree of divorce can be passed by this Court in<\/p>\n
favour of the appellant. The learned 2nd Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge has rightly dismissed the appellant’s<\/p>\n
application, hence the appeal of the appellant deserves to<\/p>\n
be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            FA.No.182\/2002<\/p>\n
24.       In the result, this appeal does not succeed and<\/p>\n
is hereby dismissed with costs. The appellant shall bear<\/p>\n
the cost of the respondent also.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (Ajit Singh)                          (N.K.Gupta)\n          Judge                               Judge\n      30\/09\/2010                            30\/09\/2010.\n\n\n\nAnsari.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh, & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, JJ. FIRST APPEAL NO.182 OF 2002 Sanjay Agrawal. Vs. Smt. Renu Agrawal. ————————————————————————————— Shri Jagtendra Prasad, lawyer counsel for the appellant. Shri […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7773","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-15T22:10:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T22:10:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3245,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T22:10:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-15T22:10:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T22:10:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010"},"wordCount":3245,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010","name":"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T22:10:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-agarwal-vs-smt-renu-agrawal-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay Agarwal vs Smt. Renu Agrawal on 30 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7773","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}