Sonu vs Shishpal — 54/2025
Case under Hindu Marriage Act Section 13a. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing on 16th March 2026.
Family Main Case - FAMILY MAIN
CNR: RJSG240002522025
Filing Number
67/2025
Filing Date
01-07-2025
Registration No
54/2025
Registration Date
10-09-2025
Court
ADJ SADULSAHAR TALUKA
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed after Full Trial/Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sonu
Adv. Rajesh Kumar Bishnoi
Respondent(s)
Shishpal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling
ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling
ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling
ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling |
| 12-03-2026 | ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling |
| 18-02-2026 | ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling |
| 13-02-2026 | ADR u/s Section 89 CPC/ Counseling |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sonu v. Shishpal (54/2025) The court dismissed Sonu's petition for divorce under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, finding insufficient evidence to support her claims of cruelty by her husband Shishpal. Although Sonu alleged dowry demands, verbal abuse, and abandonment by Shishpal after he developed a relationship with another woman, she failed to produce corroborating evidence or witness testimony to substantiate these serious allegations in court. The court held that since a petitioner bears the burden of proving facts placed before the court, and Sonu provided no supporting evidence despite opportunity to do so, her unsubstantiated assertions could not justify granting the divorce. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs, with the decree of dismissal recorded accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sonu v. Shishpal (54/2025) The court dismissed Sonu's petition for divorce under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, finding insufficient evidence to support her claims of cruelty by her husband Shishpal. Although Sonu alleged dowry demands, verbal abuse, and abandonment by Shishpal after he developed a relationship with another woman, she failed to produce corroborating evidence or witness testimony to substantiate these serious allegations in court. The court held that since a petitioner bears the burden of proving facts placed before the court, and Sonu provided no supporting evidence despite opportunity to do so, her unsubstantiated assertions could not justify granting the divorce. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs, with the decree of dismissal recorded accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts