The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of mental cruelty and desertion in determining the grounds for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgment dated 15.07.2015 by which petition filed by the respondent under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) read with Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1890 has been allowed and the claim of the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed. The appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs to respondent by way of permanent alimony and has been further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

2. Relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the marriage between the parties was performed on 28.06.2003 in Mangaluru. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 10.09.2005. The appellant at the relevant time was employed as an event manager, whereas, the respondent was working as a Manager in a private firm.

3. The respondent filed a petition on 05.03.2014 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It was inter alia pleaded that the appellant forced the respondent to abort the child. It was further pleaded that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty and hit her. It was also pleaded that the appellant deserted the respondent on 07.02.2012. Accordingly, a petition was filed seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

4. The respondent filed statement of objections as well as a counter claim. In the statement of objections, the averments made in the petition were denied and it was pleaded that he very much loves the appellant and his child. It was also pleaded that brother of the respondent from United Kingdom gave threatening calls to the respondent. In the counter claim, the respondent sought the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.

5. The family court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the issues. The respondent examined herself as PW1, whereas, appellant examined himself as RW1 and Sister Celestine as RW2. The Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2015 inter alia held that the appellant has deserted the respondent and has treated her with cruelty. Accordingly, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. However, the counter claim filed by the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the family court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and the consequent decree. It is further submitted that the family court ought to have appreciated that the respondent was thrown out of the matrimonial home. It is also argued that no ground of dissolution of marriage is made out. However, it is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent has migrated to United Kingdom.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decree passed by the family court.

8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. In Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Gosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Supreme Court inter alia has elaborated the instances of mental cruelty which are reproduced below for the facility of reference:

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably