The main legal point established is that unsubstantiated disgusting accusations, false allegations, and assault by one spouse against the other constitute mental cruelty, justifying a claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her petition filed under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the appellant/wife who was the petitioner before the Family Court has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Family Court.

3. FACTS: Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 18.05.1989 at Channapatna as per Hindu customs and rituals. Through the wedlock, they are blessed with a son and a daughter who are now aged 23 years and 21 years respectively. Their son is mentally disabled. It is averred that though respondent was working in a private company, he did not pay much attention to his family including providing treatment to his disabled son and education to the children.

4. After one year of the marriage, respondent started consuming alcohol and used to quarrel with the petitioner. He used to scold her in vulgar language. When she questioned respondent about him having an illicit relationship, he used to assault her and make allegations against her character. On 07.12.2014, respondent assaulted the petitioner with a chopper with the intention to kill her. She was shifted to Maharaja Agrasena Hospital, Benglauru by her brother. In this regard, she has lodged complaint with Ijoor Police in Cr.No.220/2014 and a charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 307 IPC. From the date of marriage, respondent has not at all taken the responsibility of maintaining the petitioner and their children. Petitioner reasonably apprehends that it is not safe for her to live with the respondent.

5. Respondent had appeared before the Family Court and filed objections admitting the relationship between the parties and that they are having a son and daughter. However, he has denied that after one year he started quarelling with the petitioner under the influence of alcohol and used to abuse and assault her. He has claimed that they lived happily till 2014 when one Jayakumar, a relative of petitioner started living in their house. When respondent objected for the same and requested petitioner to send him out of their house, she started quarelling with him.

6. Petitioner has purchased two properties in her name and has let them out on rent. She has leased two houses for more than Rs.6,00,000/-p.a. During the absence of respondent, she has left the matrimonial home with all the household articles, jewels, etc. Since December 2014, respondent is living alone. Petitioner has lodged a false complaint and in the said case, respondent was arrested and kept in judicial custody. On the other hand, on 27.08.2014, it was petitioner and said Jayakumar, who assaulted the respondent. He was paying the loan installments taken for the construction of house. Even now, respondent is ready to take back the petitioner and children. He has filed O.S.No.170/2015 for declaration that the two houses are the joint property of petitioner and respondent.

7. Respondent has denied that on 07.12.2014, he assaulted the petitioner. In fact, on 21.04.2014, petitioner consumed some tablets and it was he who shifted her to B.G.S Hospital, Ramanagara. After being married for 25 years, making false allegtions, the petitioner is seeking divorce.

8. Based on pleadings, the Family Court has framed issues and has recorded the evidence.

9. In support of her case, petitioner has examined herself PW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 16. Respondent has examined himself as RW-1 and got marked Exs.R-1 to 4.

10. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court rejected the petition.

11. Learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that inspite of petitioner leading evidence to prove the allegation of cruelty, the Family Court has rejected the petition holding that she h