The main legal point established in the judgment is that the marriage bond can be considered broken irretrievably due to mental cruelty, loss of mutual trust and faith, and the refusal to share the bed, leading to the conclusion that the marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage.

JUDGMENT :

1. The respondent has filed this Misc. First Appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Gulbarga in M.C.No.108/2013 dtd. 30/4/2014 whereby it has allowed the petition filed under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband-respondent herein and dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3. The factual matrix leading to this case are that, the petitioner husband has filed the petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce against the respondent wife. It is alleged that the petitioner and respondent are the legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 7/11/2011 at Venkateshwar Kalyan Mantap, Gulbarga and it was a love cum arranged marriage. That after the marriage, respondent has joined the company of the petitioner and out of the said wedlock a son by name Aryan was born on 19/8/2012. It is alleged that after the birth of the child, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent become strained and respondent had refused to prepare/cook the food in the house and also she had not cooperated with the petitioner in marital obligation. It is further alleged that respondent has refused to cohabit with the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner any physical contact with her without any reasons and refused to share bed with him which amounts to mental cruelty. It is also alleged that she used to insist for payment of entire salary to her and later on she ousted the petitioner from his house. It is also alleged that the respondent is suspecting the character of the petitioner making allegation that he is having illicit relationship with others and the marriage bond was irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility to reunion. Hence, the petitioner claims that the act of the respondent amounts to cruelty and sought for dissolution of the marriage.

4. The respondent has appeared and admitted the relationship, but denied the other allegations. She has contended that the petitioner is addicted to bad habits like drinking alcohol, gambling and womanizing and he is a short tampered person, behaved in abnormal and indifferent manner. She alleged that he used to come to house late in the night and used to insist her to bring dowry from her parents. She also alleged that he sexually harassed her by beating her and used to abuse her in filthy language and she tolerated all these ill-treatment with a hope of change in the attitude of the petitioner in future but there was no improvement. It is alleged that petitioner has not married the respondent whole heartedly as he is having eagle eye over the salary of the respondent and other allowances. Hence, she has sought for rejection of the petition.

5. Initially during the trial before the Family Court, the matter was referred to conciliation, but it did not materialized. Then petitioner himself was got examined as PW-1 and his father was examined as PW-2 and one witness was examined as PW-3. The petitioner has placed reliance on two documents marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The respondent got herself examined as DW-1 and one another witness was examined as DW-2. Ex.D1 was marked which is pertaining to call details between petitioner and one Saroja.

6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent at length. We have also perused the trial court records in detail.

7. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the judgment and decree under the appeal is contrary to law and records of the case. He would also contended that Ex.P2 is not a authenticated document which is inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be looked into. He would also contend that non performance of daily activities alone does not amount to cruelty and he would further contend