The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of mental cruelty in granting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on the husband's involvement in criminal activities and its impact on the wife.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals are filed by the wife challenging the common Judgment and Order passed by the Family Court at Belagavi in M.C. No.63/2014 and M.C. No.80/2014 dated 07.04.2016.

2. In this Judgment, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as husband and wife. M.C. No.63/2014 is filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights while M.C. No.80/2014 is filed by the wife for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The husband filed M.C. No.63/2014 claiming that their marriage was registered on 31.10.2012 without the knowledge of their respective parents and that after the marriage was registered, they informed their parents and that their parents accepted their marriage and that the wife joined the husband to lead a married life. He stated that they lived for one month peacefully and happily and that the marriage was consummated and after about one month, his in-laws requested that the wife be sent to their house for few days and after she went to her parental house, she did not return. The husband went to his in-laws with an intention to bring back his wife, but his in-laws assured that she would be sent soon, but did not. Later, the husband realized that his wife was avoiding him and whenever he tried to contact her and when he went to the house of in-laws, he was not treated properly by his in-laws and other members of the family. As such, he stated that there was separation for more than one year. He, therefore, contended that his wife was under the control of her parents and she was being restrained by her parents from coming in contact with her husband. With these contentions, he filed a petition contending that his wife had withdrawn from his company without there being any justifiable reason though he was willing to lead a married life with his wife. Therefore, he sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The wife filed her statement, accepted the fact that the marriage was registered, but contended that she never lived with her husband for one month as alleged. She also contended that the marriage was not consummated. She contended that her husband was having links with antisocial elements and also involved in antisocial activity. She claimed that her husband was arrested by the Maharashtra Police in Pune when he was found possessing leopard’s hide and was attempting to sell the same and the same was published in all leading news papers and also circulated in the internet. She claimed that because of the illegal activity of her husband, she could not face the society and she became a recluse and had to abandon her MBA studies and she contended that she did not want to lead a matrimonial life with her husband.

5. Close on the heels of the above petition, the wife filed a petition in M.C. No.80/2014 for divorce on the very same ground, namely, that the husband had cheated her stating that he was from a rich family and that after the marriage, he would arrange for separate residence. She also contended that her husband had assured to inform the marriage to his parents and that he would take her to her parents and live with them. She also claimed that she came to know about her husband being imprisoned for 10 to 15 days by the Pune Police in respect of an offence committed by her husband under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, as he was found in possession of a leopard’s hide and was attempting to sell it. She claimed that this news was circulated in the major newspapers and also in the internet causing severe damage to her reputation since all her friends and relatives started teasing her that her husband was a criminal. She also claimed that she went into depression and she could not complete her MBA studies and became a recluse in her parent’s house. With these, she contended that she did not want to continue to live with her husband and therefore, sought for divorce.

6. The husband filed his objections contending that all the allegations were false and further cont