: Normal wear and tear in family life does not amount to cruelty for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These appeals are filed by the husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C. No. 1993/2006 c/w M.C. No. 30/2008.

2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them before the Family Court.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are, the marriage of the petitioner-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 02.10.2003 as per the Hindu customs and rites. For a short period after the marriage, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and thereafter, difference of opinion cropped up between them and they started to quarrel on petty issues. The petitioner had gone to her parents house on 13.06.2004 during Ashadamasa and at that point of time, she was pregnant. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband and his parents did not thereafter bother to inquire about her health nor did they visit her. On 26.02.2005, she gave birth to a male child who was named Danush. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent did not come to see the petitioner and the newly born child, nor did he take her back to the matrimonial house. It is her further case that though efforts were made by her and her parents to settle the difference of opinion between the parties, the respondent did not co-operate. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner-wife had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights, which was numbered as M.C. No. 1993/2006.

4. Upon service of notice in the said proceedings, respondent-husband had entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections admitting the relationship, but denied the allegations made in the petition. He stated that he had taken proper care of the petitioner and she was regularly taken to the hospital during her pregnancy. He had also stated that he himself had admitted her in the Nursing Home for delivery and he only had met all the hospital expenses. However, the petitioner did not show any interest to join him and efforts made by him and his parents in this regard were all in vain, and accordingly, he had prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act which was numbered as M.C. No. 30/2008 seeking decree of divorce on the ground that the wife had treated him with cruelty after solemnization of his marriage with her. He had averred in the said petition that during the stay in the matrimonial house, his wife used to get telephone calls from unknown persons and whenever he inquired, she used to quarrel with him. He also stated that the petitioner-wife used to visit her parents house very often without even intimating him and she was showing minimum respect to him and his parents. He also alleged that the petitioner-wife used to show indifferent attitude towards him and used to react with him in a violent manner, and accordingly, had prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

6. The petitioner-wife had filed objections to the said petition denying the averments made in the said petition, while admitting the relationship.

7. The Family Court clubbed both the cases and recorded common evidence in both the cases. In order to substantiate their respective cases, the petitioner-wife was examined as PW-1 and she got marked seven documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7. The respondent-husband was examined as RW-1. However, no documents were marked in support of his case. The Family Court vide the impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act, and dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband has preferred these two appeals before this Court.

8. Learned Coun