The court ruled that mere marital conflicts do not amount to cruelty under divorce law, emphasizing that cruelty must be demonstrable and ongoing.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent.

2. No one appears for the respondent-petitioner.

3. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2017 passed in M.C. No.538/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. By means of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petition filed by the respondent-petitioner under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, HM Act was allowed and a decree of divorce was granted. Under the provision of Section 27 of the HM Act, the respondent-petitioner was directed to return the gold ornaments if any, almirah, cot and clothes of the respondent within one month of the decree.

4. The case in the petition is that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 08.02.2009 at R.K.R. Kalyana Mantapa, APC Circle, Jigani, Anekal Taluk as per the Hindu rights and customs. After the marriage both of them resided together in the house of petitioner’s parents at No.379, 3^rd Square, Austin Town, Bengaluru. The allegation is that right from the beginning, the relationship between the two was never cordial as the respondent never co-operated and used to behave indifferently with him and with his family members. During her stay she was never a responsible wife and never performed marital duties towards the petitioner and was not taking care of the petitioner by showing love and affection. She used to stay two days in the matrimonial home and one week in her parents' house and if the petitioner and his parents refused to send her to her parents' house, she used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner and his family members and used to lock herself in a room and not eat, till she was dropped to her parents' house. Later, she conceived and delivered a girl child on 22.12.2009. Thereafter, she came to the petitioner's house reluctuntatly but never used to take care of the child and not feed the child properly. It was the mother of the petitioner who used to take care of the child and cook the food. The respondent was always in the neighbors house and gossiping with neighbors. When the petitioner and his parents asked anything about the same, the respondent picked up quarrel with him and made a big issue of the same and used to pack all her clothes and go to her parents' house leaving the child in the petitioner's house. It is alleged that she used to search the cupboard of other family members and always cash used to be missing at home. The parents of the petitioner decided to make a separate house for the petitioner and the respondent in Austin Town and after making separate house, the respondent very often went to her parents' house. Whenever she was in the house she never cooked food for the petitioner or for the child though huge quantity of provisions was purchased as per her wish. She did not wake up early in the mornings and cook breakfast for the petitioner and even at night, he had to sleep many days on empty stomach. It is stated that because of the disturbance caused by the respondent and her torture, the petitioner could not concentrate on his work and as a result, he was thrown out of the job many times. It was stated that on 12.01.2013, the respondent had gone to her parents' house for Sankranti along with her child and had not returned till the date of filing of the petition. Thereafter, when the petitioner requested the respondent to come back, she refused and her family members humiliated the petitioner. In November 2013, the respondent had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner in Anekal and in the police station, she had s