In cases of matrimonial disputes pertaining to cruelty, parties are required to describe the measure and standard of cruelty and provide cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J.

This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against judgment dated 25.04.2013 passed by the family court by which the marriage performed between the parties on 24.10.2007 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the marriage between the parties was an arranged marriage which was performed on 24.10.2007. After the marriage, appellant and the respondent went to Ooty, Kodaikanal and Mysore. On or about 01.01.2009, the respondent filed a petition under Section 12 and 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It was averred in the petition that appellant never behaved like a newly wed girl and never evinced any interest in being with the respondent. It was further averred that appellant kept herself away from the respondent and never allowed the respondent to have physical contact. It was further averred that appellant did not wear mangalsutra and used to behave violently.

3. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant never took the responsibility of cooking the food at home and she used to lock herself inside a room for 4 to 5 hours and used to shout. It was pleaded that appellant broke a big mirror, which was fixed on the door and another plastic chair. It is the case of the respondent that appellant used to shout continuously to 2.5 hours to 5 hours. It was averred that on 17.06.2008, the appellant got up early and started shouting continuously for 5 hours and threw all the vessels in the kitchen and spoiled food items. On 24.07.2008, the appellant broke the remote of the television. It was also pleaded that appellant used to sleep for long hours and was not even interested to have food in time. It is also averred that the marriage between the parties has not been consummated. Accordingly, a decree under Section 12 as well as Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act was sought.

4. The respondent filed his statement of objection, in which factum of marriage was admitted. However, the remaining averments made in the petition were denied.

5. The family court on the basis of pleading of parties, framed issues. The respondent examined himself and his father viz., H.L.Subramanya as PW2 and exhibited documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The appellant examined herself. The family court vide judgment dated 25.04.2013 inter alia held that ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 12 of the Act is not established. However, the family court held that the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty accordingly, the marriage between them was dissolved under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent ought to have tendered an evidence of an expert viz., a Doctor about the mental health of her health as well as her capability to lead marital life. It is further submitted that no medical evidence was led by the respondent to prove the fact that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia. It is also urged that after the parties had led evidence, the appellant had filed an interlocutory application seeking an appointment of court commissioner viz., a Doctor to examine the parties. However, the aforesaid application was erroneously rejected by the family court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'RAM NARAIN GUPTA VS. SMT. RAMEHWARI GUPTA', (1988) 4 SCC 247, 'KOLLAM CHANDRA SEKHAR VS. KOLLAM PADMA LATHA', (2014) 1 SCC 225.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the judgment passed by the family court has invited the attention of this court to the cross examination of the appellant.

8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is trite law that standard of proof in a case of matrimonial dispute pertaining to cruelty cannot