The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fulfilling the mandatory period for desertion and the need for specific instances of cruelty to grant a divorce.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Khazi, J. - This appeal is under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, has been filed by the husband challenging the impugned judgment and order, whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion which came to be rejected by the Family Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter 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 26.01.2004 at Sira as per the Hindu rituals. On 08.11.2005, they jointly purchased a house at Anubhavanagar, Bengaluru. While petitioner was the principal borrower, respondent was the co-obligant. A daughter was born to them on 19.10.2005. Petitioner alleges that respondent lived with him only for a period of eight months. Thereafter, she deserted him. After respondent's father re-married, respondent ousted the petitioner from the house which they had purchased jointly. Respondent took care of the daughter only for a period of one month. Therefore, to take care of the child, petitioner's parents started living with him at Bengaluru. Respondent sent an e-mail to the petitioner using filthy language and threatening that she would commit suicide and implicate him. The conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty. Respondent is not ready and willing to join the petitioner. Inspite of owning a house, petitioner is forced to live in a rented house. Petitioner is taking care of their daughter as both father and mother. Respondent has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner, since more than three years immediately prior to the filing of the petition and has thereby deserted him. Therefore, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, he has sought for a decree of divorce.

4. Respondent appeared and filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and birth of the daughter on 19.10.2005. However, she has denied that she stayed in the house of the petitioner only for a period of eight months. On the other hand, it is her case that she stayed with the petitioner till January 2010 and alleges that during the month of January 2010, petitioner physically ousted her from the matrimonial home. The joint acquisition of the residential house by petitioner and respondent is admitted. She has alleged that since February 2008, petitioner has not bothered to pay 50% of his share of equated monthly instalments of the home loan and thereby the respondent was burdened to discharge the loan. Instead of bothering to pay the home loan instalment, petitioner purchased a brand new car. Respondent has further pleaded that when the petitioner failed to discharge his part of the responsibility, she felt cheated and thereby she was subjected to cruelty. Since the house which was jointly purchased by petitioner and respondent was not habitable, they had shifted to a rented accommodation in RPC Layout during 2009. Petitioner took care of her daughter till January 2010, when she was ousted from the matrimonial home by forcibly taking the child from her. Since then she was not allowed to meet the child. She alleges that petitioner is indulged in an illegal relationship with his sister's daughter and when this was objected to by her, she was driven out of the matrimonial home. So far as the allegation of sending threatening messages through e-mail, respondent has contended petitioner has misused her password and concocted the e-mail while she was living with him. It is also pleaded that Since she was drawing more salary than petitioner, he has developed inferiority complex and that she is ready to live with the petitioner and has sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The conciliation efforts made during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court has failed.

6. Parties have led oral and documentary evidence on their behalf.

7. Petitioner is examine