MADHYA PRADESH<\/em>: A shocking legal dispute has come from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, where a woman allegedly got divorce after calling her husband\u2019s real sister his \u201csecond wife\u201d in court records<\/strong>. Now the husband has challenged the order in the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case is about a couple married since 1998. The husband worked in a marketing company and often stayed away from home because of work. Due to regular disputes, the wife started living separately from him in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As per reports, the wife wanted divorce, but the husband was not ready to end the marriage<\/strong>. In 2021, she approached the family court and claimed that her husband had remarried.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To support her case, she submitted a family group photograph. In that picture, the husband was standing with his sister and other relatives. The wife allegedly told the court that the woman standing next to him was his \u201csecond wife\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on the photo and claim, the family court granted an ex-parte divorce decree<\/strong> in favour of the wife. This means the order was passed one-sidedly, without the husband getting a proper chance to present his side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter reportedly came to light in the first week of April when the husband learned about the divorce order. After checking court records, he was shocked to see that the woman shown as his \u201csecond wife\u201d<\/strong> was actually his own sister.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Government advocate Dharmendra Sharma<\/strong> said the husband has now challenged the one-sided divorce order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/strong>, Gwalior bench.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband has alleged that the court was misled and the divorce decree was obtained through false claims and wrong representation. The case has again highlighted how serious family court allegations can deeply affect both sides if facts are not properly verified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court is now hearing the matter. The husband has requested that the divorce order be cancelled, saying the judgment was based on misleading and incorrect claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The upcoming hearing is expected to decide whether the 28-year-old marriage was legally ended on false evidence or whether the divorce order will be set aside.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanatory Table Of Laws And Legal Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ SECTION<\/strong><\/td> FULL NAME<\/strong><\/td> HOW IT RELATES TO THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955 Section 13<\/strong><\/td> Divorce Grounds<\/td> Wife appears to have sought divorce under matrimonial grounds. Exact clause not disclosed.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(i)<\/strong><\/td> Adultery (historically used ground)<\/td> Allegation of second marriage\/extra-marital conduct may be linked in pleadings.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia)<\/strong><\/td> Cruelty<\/td> Commonly pleaded in divorce disputes. Exact section not confirmed here.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ib)<\/strong><\/td> Desertion<\/td> Since parties lived separately since 2015, this may arise depending on pleadings.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 15<\/strong><\/td> Divorced persons may remarry<\/td> Relevant only after valid decree becomes final.<\/td><\/tr> CPC Order IX Rule 13<\/strong><\/td> Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree<\/td> Husband may rely on principles against one-sided decree if no fair hearing given.<\/td><\/tr> Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Proof and Admissibility<\/td> Photo evidence and identity claims must be properly proved.<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/strong><\/td> New Evidence Law<\/td> If proceedings continue under current regime, evidentiary principles may apply prospectively.<\/td><\/tr> IPC Section 191\/193 (old law)<\/strong><\/td> False Evidence \/ Perjury<\/td> If knowingly false statement made in court. Subject to court action.<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions<\/strong><\/td> False Evidence equivalents<\/td> Current penal framework may apply depending on timing.<\/td><\/tr> Contempt \/ Abuse of Process Principles<\/strong><\/td> Judicial Integrity<\/td> Misleading court can invite serious consequences.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n