The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of mental cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, should be determined based on the principles of mental agony, emotional trauma, and reasonable apprehension of harm or injury.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - This appeal under Section 55(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) arises out of judgment dated 22.06.2020, by which petition filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 17.05.1999 at Chikkamagalur. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 06.10.2001. On 08.06.2017, the appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act. It was pleaded that family of the respondent has financial issues, which led to fights and arguments between parents, siblings and children. The respondent was unable to take care of the financial needs of the appellant. She therefore, decided to take up a job. It was averred that in order to support the respondent, she moved to UAE in 2008 and started working in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank in October 2008. The appellant thereafter started paying of the debts of the family of the respondent and brought some agricultural properties in the name of respondent. However, despite the effort put in by the appellant, the respondent failed to be financially independent and instead of taking care of financial needs of the appellant was dependant on her.

3. In the year 2012, the appellant realized that the respondent as well as members of his family were draining her financially as well as emotionally. The appellant therefore, decided to seek divorce and apprised the respondent about it. However, the respondent bluntly refused the proposal made by the appellant. The appellant with an object of giving her marriage another chance, took the respondent to UAE in the year 2012 and set up a salon there with an investor visa. However, by the end of the year 2013, the respondent expressed the intention to go back to India.

4. It is the case of the appellant that she has spent approximately Rs. 60 Lakhs on respondent and his family and has been living away from her daughter. It was further pleaded that the respondent has failed to take care of the appellant and the appellant in fact has taken care of her husband's failed business ventures as well as loans and debts of his family.

5. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear before the Court and by an order dated 04.01.2018 was placed ex parte.

6. The appellant examined herself as PW1 and got exhibited 8 documents namely EX. P1 to P8.

7. The Family Court by the impugned judgment inter alia held that the appellant except financial transaction has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. It was further held that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent has caused mental agony and has ill treated the appellant mentally. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the petition as well as the examination in chief of the appellant submitted that the appellant had proved that the Respondent had subjected the appellant to cruelty. It ought to have been appreciated by the Family Court that the Respondent despite service of notice did not appear before the Family Court and had not entered the witness box. It is also submitted that no evidence in rebuttal was led and therefore, the version of the appellant ought to have been accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has supported the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.

9. We have considered the arguments advanced on both the side and have perused the record. It is trite law that standard of proof in a case of matrimonial dispute pertaining to cruelty cannot be said to be applicable as is applicable in case of trial in the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the parties to the dispute is required to describe the measure and s