The burden of proving the ground of cruelty in seeking dissolution of marriage lies with the party alleging it, and the evidence presented must be sufficient to support the claim.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J. - This appeal under Sec. 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 20/4/2016 passed in M.C.No.3/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, by which the petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking dissolution of marriage, was allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant/wife and respondent/husband got married on 13/11/2005 as per the Hindu customs and rituals. The respondent/husband has averred that he is from a respectable family and his father is a government servant. It is further averred that the appellant/wife was happily residing in the matrimonial home initially after the marriage and out of the wedlock a male child has been born. It is further averred that the appellant/wife was not discharging her marital obligations properly, she used to quarrel with the respondent/husband and she had not shown any interest in cooking. It is further averred that mother of the respondent/husband is suffering from skin disease, hence the appellant/wife used to disrespect her and did not allow her to touch household articles. It is further averred that the appellant/wife used to pick up quarrel with the mother in law for silly reasons and as per the wish of the appellant/wife the respondent/husband had arranged separate house hoping that situation would improve. However, the appellant/wife has not changed her attitude. It is averred that appellant/wife threatened the respondent/husband and his family members and later went to her parental house without informing the appellant/wife, but later she came back. The act of the appellant/wife caused mental agony to the respondent/husband. It is further averred that appellant/wife is suffering from psychological problems, hence she was treated by the Psychiatrist and the Doctor has opined that the brain of the appellant/wife is not matured and was provided treatment. The appellant/wife refused to follow the Doctor's advise, by not taking the tablets. It is further averred that during second week of February 2009 the appellant/wife left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents and she refused to rejoin the matrimonial home. It is further averred that respondent/husband sent a letter to the appellant/wife and her father on 15/4/2009 and got issued legal notice dtd. 25/5/2009 to the appellant/wife, however, there was no reply from the appellant/wife. It is further averred that appellant/wife was harassing the respondent/husband, thus the acts of the appellant/wife amounts to cruelty.

3. The appellant/wife has entered appearance before the Family Court and filed the statement of objections. The appellant/wife has admitted the relationship and the birth of the child out of the wedlock. The appellant/wife has specifically denied the allegation of cruelty and averred that parents of the appellant/wife have given gold ornaments to the respondent/husband. It is further averred that it is the respondent/husband and his family members, who have behaved rudely with the appellant/wife. It is further averred that immediately after the birth of the child, the respondent/husband's family members used to get the household work done by the appellant/wife and did not provide her with sufficient food. Hence, she was not able to feed the new born baby. It is further averred that respondent/husband and his family members have harassed in order to forcefully send out the appellant/wife from matrimonial home.

4. The Family Court on the basis of pleading and evidence, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The respondent/husband examined himself as PW.1 and other two witnesses and produced Exs.P1 to P13. The appellant/wife examined herself as RW.1 and examined other two witnesses and produced Ex.R1. The Family Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties vide judgment dtd. 20/4/2016 allowed the petition by dissolving the marriage between the appellant/wif