The court found that mental cruelty allegations must be substantiated with evidence, and self-serving claims are insufficient for relief under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree in M.C.No.499/2011 and M.C.No.197/2012 passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Mysuru. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has dismissed M.C.No.197/2012 filed by the appellant/husband for decree of dissolution of marriage and allowed M.C.No.499/2011 filed by respondent/wife under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The appellant was the respondent in M.C.No.499/2011 and petitioner in M.C.No.197/2012. Respondent was the petitioner in M.C.No.499/2011 and respondent in M.C.No.197/2012. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as husband and wife i.e., their status in their matrimonial life.

3. The parties are Hindus and governed by HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 25.9.2006 at Chanakya Kalyana Mantapa, JP Nagar, Mysuru. The couple were blessed with a daughter on 31.10.2007. Before marriage and even during the pendency of the proceedings, the husband was serving as constable in CISF. At the time of marriage he was working in Agartala. Thereafter he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

4. Husband filed OP (HMA) No.587/2011 for divorce against the wife before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that wife has subjected him to cruelty and has willfully deserted him. On transfer petition filed by the wife before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said case was transferred to Family Court, Mysore and renumbered as M.C.No.197/2012. In the meanwhile, wife filed M.C.No.499/2011 against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that he has willfully deserted her. She also contended in the petition that husband and his family members have subjected her to cruelty.

5. On transfer, Family Court consolidated both the petitions and recorded common evidence in M.C.No.499/2011. Wife was examined as PW.1 and on her behalf Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. Husband was examined as RW.1. On his behalf, Exs.R.1 to R17 were marked.

6. The Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment, allowed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed husband’s petition for divorce holding that he has failed to prove the alleged cruelty whereas wife has proved her allegation that he has willfully deserted her.

7. Husband has questioned the decree in M.C.No.197/2012 in MFA No.5400/2015 and decree in M.C.No.499/2011 in MFA No.4438/2015. Though the appeals were filed in 2015, the records show that the appellant had not cleared the office objections raised by the Scrutiny branch up to 15.12.2020. The coordinate bench of this Court on 15.12.2020 though condoned the delay in filing the appeals, disposed of the appeals reserving liberty to the husband to file petition under section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act and if he is unsuccessful in the said petition, liberty was reserved to revive these appeals. Para 5 of the said judgment which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:

“5. Though these appeals were filed on 17.07.2015 and 12.06.2015, the office objections have not been removed till date. In the circumstances, we dispose of these appeals by reserving liberty to the appellant-husband to file a petition under Section 13 (1A) & (ii) of the Act, seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights of the parties for a period of one year. In the event the appellant-husban