The main legal point established in this judgment is that for a spouse to claim divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, the conduct of the other spouse must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. The Court must consider the background, education level, and status of the parties to determine whether the alleged cruelty justifies dissolution of marriage. Additionally, for desertion to be established, there must be a factum of separation and an intention on the part of the deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. The deserted spouse must also show the absence of consent and conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2015 in M.C. No. 3032/2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by which the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal in a nutshell are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.06.1991 at Bangalore as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of wedlock they were blessed with a baby girl. It was averred that the relationship between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife was cordial initially for about 2 to 3 years and thereafter, respondent/ wife started dominating, always used to quarrel and abuse the appellant/husband with filthy words. It was further averred that respondent/wife used to dislike the appellant’s relatives and tried to avoid all family functions. It was averred that approximately 23 times she quarreled with him and voluntarily left the matrimonial home without informing him and she is not willing to rejoin him. It was further averred that several attempts to bring the respondent/wife back to matrimonial home, went in vain.

3. It was further averred that respondent/wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 18.05.2008 along with daughter with an intention to permanently reside with her parents. It was further averred that appellant/husband and his family members have made efforts to bring the wife to matrimonial home, but she has not agreed. It was further averred that respondent/wife is interested in money hence she filed O.S. No. 4/2011 claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month, which is pending adjudication. It was further averred that respondent/wife filed complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore on 29.09.2010. It was further averred that on 20.10.2010 Family Counselling Centre Bangalore, issued notice to the appellant based on the complaint of respondent/wife and the same was replied. It was further averred that respondent filed another complaint on 12.02.2012 before the General Manager, Rail Wheel Factory (Indian Railways) Yelahanka Bangalore, and the said authority issued notice to him, which was replied by the appellant husband. It was further averred that respondent/wife tried maximum to harass the appellant/husband even at his work place to spoil his reputation. It was further averred that on account of misbehaviour and non co-operation of the respondent/wife they are living separately for the last many years. The marriage has broken down irretrievably and therefore, the appellant/husband sought for a decree of divorce.

4. The respondent/wife entered appearance before the Family Court and filed statement of objections, opposing the petition by denying the averments made in the petition. The respondent/wife has admitted the relationship between the parties, however, she specifically denies the averment that she used to dictate terms to the appellant/husband and she denied the averment of cruelty. The respondent/wife averred that it is the appellant who used to harass the respondent by picking up quarrel. It was further averred that on 18.05.2008, after quarrelling with the respondent/wife the appellant/husband has driven the respondent/wife and her daughter out of the house. Since then they are staying with her parents. It was further submitted that she filed O.S. No. 4/2011 seeking maintenance, she has admitted that she has filed the complaint to the various authorities against the appellant/husband. It was further averred that said complaints are filed with an intention to get justice and not to harass the appellant/husband and she denied that she is not responsible for the health issues of the appellant/husband and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The Family Court recorded evidence of the parties. The appellant/husband examined himsel