The main legal point established is that the mere filing of a criminal case does not automatically constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court emphasized the need for evidence of wilful and unjustifiable conduct causing danger to life or health for cruelty, and the requirement of animus deserendi for desertion.

JUDGMENT

1. This miscellaneous first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree passed by the court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, dated 15th March 2016 in M.C.No.3584/2011 wherein the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the husband was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are:

The marriage of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 24.03.2002 at Gurukula Kalyana Mantapa, Tiptur as per Hindu rites and customs and from the said wedlock, they have a female child, who was born on 18.06.2003. The respondent had approached the Family Court, Bangalore, seeking dissolution of the marriage contending that the appellant was demanding for setting up a separate house immediately after the marriage. It is his case that he lived with his widowed mother and a younger brother in his house and he had the responsibility to look after them and therefore, he had rejected the demand of the appellant for setting up a separate house. It is contended by him that the wife was in a habit of quarreling with his family members for no reason and she used to leave the matrimonial house and go to her sister's house and mother's house without informing him or his mother or brother. Because of this behaviour and conduct of the wife, his life was made miserable. It is further contended by him that in the month of January 2007, the appellant-wife without informing him left the matrimonial home along with the child and there afterwards she did not return back, though he had made several requests to her. He there afterwards got issued a legal notice dated 12.04.2007 and the appellant issued a untenable reply to the same. Subsequently she lodged a criminal complaint against him and his relatives for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in Crime No.61/2007 at Nonavinakere Police Station, Tumkur and the respondent and his relatives were charge sheeted and tried for the alleged offences and subsequently they were acquitted in the said case. It is his further case that on 01.06.2009, wife had voluntarily left the child at his place of work and there afterwards he had admitted the child in a private school and the appellant-wife had kidnapped the child from the School on 23.06.2009 and in this regard, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the School Authorities, a case was registered against the wife for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC in Crime No.171/2009. It is his definite case that the wife had no intention to live with him and perform her matrimonial obligation and there are no possibilities of re-conciliation and accordingly he had sought for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion.

3. The appellant-wife had entered appearance in the said proceedings before the Family Court and had filed her statement of objections admitting the relationship but denied all other allegations made against her by her husband. Shehad contended in her statement of objections that during her stay in the matrimonial home, her husband used to ill-treat her and also assault her for having not brought sufficient dowry from her parents house. She had further contended that on 17.01.2007, her husband assaulted her and demanded to bring a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents house and when she refused and pleaded her inability to bring the said amount, her husband and his relatives forcibly threw her out of the matrimonial house and therefore, she was constrained to live in her parents' house there afterwards. Though a request was made by her and her parents to take her back, all efforts made in this regard were in vain and though several panchayats were