The main legal point established is that the conduct amounting to cruelty, as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, can lead to the dissolution of marriage, especially when the parties have been living separately for an extended period.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved by dismissal of her petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, petitioner has come up with this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Family Court.

3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 24.02.2006 at Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. It was an arranged marriage. Before her engagement with the respondent, the petitioner was still prosecuting her studies and therefore, she attempted to communicate about her future plans to the respondent that she was not interested to marry till she settles in her career. However, respondent assured that he would cooperate with the petitioner for the completion of her Ph.D course for a duration of five years. Therefore, reluctantly the petitioner agreed for the marriage. After the marriage, petitioner came back to Bengaluru to continue her Ph.D and on this account their marriage was not consummated. Respondent also returned to Bengaluru in connection with his employment. He used to visit the petitioner in her campus.

4. Subsequently, he started insisting that she should join him at his residence. As she had not completed her Ph.D course she was not agreeable to the said proposition. Therefore, she was avoiding the respondent. Without understanding the situation, respondent started insulting and abusing the petitioner and used to cast allegations against her parents. He went on harassing the petitioner and also threatened to commit suicide on the ground that their marriage is not consummated. He harassed her physically and mentally. He used to say that she is useless and used to humiliate the petitioner. He used to call the father of the petitioner and threaten him. During Janauary 2007, petitioner’s father died due to a heart attack. The lewd remarks made by the respondent and insults to the petitioner, it created a tense atmosphere in the family of the petitioner. Her family members were also defamed. In this background, it is averred that the conduct of the respondent threatened the life of petitioner. The conciliation proceedings also ended in failure.

5. On 01.11.2007 respondent has sent legal notice to the petitioner to join him. Petitioner also approached Mahila Dakshitha Samithi, a family counseling Centre, Bengaluru. Inspite of receiving notice, respondent did not turn up for conciliation. On the other hand, he filed O.P.No.40/2008 before the Family Court, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner refused to join the respondent since she is yet to complete her Ph.D. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is seeking dissolution of marriage.

6. In the statement of objections, respondent has admitted the relationship between the parties. However, he has alleged that the petitioner is adamant, rude and egoistic and he has tolerated the same for a long time. His parents expected from the petitioner that in addition to pursuing her studies, the petitioner would also lead a happy married life. He is ready to co-operate with the petitioner till her completion of Ph.D. by staying with her. The filing of O.P.No.40/2008 seeking restitution of conjugal rights was admitted. However, he has denied that respondent has inflicted the cruelty to the petitioner and insulted her.

7. It is contended that the petitioner did not heed the advise of her father, family members as well as elders in the family and that the Family Court, Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute and has sought for dismissal of the petition.

8. During the enquiry, petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 9. Respondent has not led any evidence on his behalf, but through the cross-examination has got marked Ex.R1 and 2.

9. Vide