The court emphasized that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with convincing evidence, highlighting the burden of proof lies with the alleging party.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. ARAVIND, J.

1. Heard Smt. B.R. Madhumala, appellant-party-in-person and Sri. Hallur Shivayogi Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner in M.C.No.241/2017, assailing the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga, [Family Court] has preferred this appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act.

2.1 The petitioner–appellant herein had preferred a petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, [1955 Act] seeking dissolution of marriage by way of divorce.

3. The brief facts are that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnised on 13.02.2014 at Srishaila Mallikarjuna Basaveshwara Sabha Bhavana, Shivamogga, in accordance with the customs prevailing in the Hindu community. As part of the customary practices, the appellant’s father and the respondent’s parents offered gold ornaments to the appellant at the time of marriage.

3.1 After the marriage, the parties initially resided at Bhadravathi and subsequently shifted to Bengaluru. They are stated to have led a cordial marital life for a few months. Thereafter, it is alleged that the appellant was subjected to ill- treatment by the respondent at the instigation of his parents, brother and married sister, who are said to have been demanding money and jewellery from the appellant’s father. It is further alleged that the respondent broke the appellant’s mobile phone to prevent her from communicating with her parents and from disclosing the alleged acts of cruelty.

3.2 It is also pleaded that, under the guise of a routine medical check-up, the appellant was taken to a hospital where an abdominal scan was carried out to ascertain whether she had undergone any premarital abortion. The respondent’s parents and brother, who were residing at Bhadravathi, are alleged to have visited Bengaluru to further harass and ill-treat the appellant. In addition to gold, they allegedly demanded cash as well. When the ill-treatment became intolerable, the appellant is said to have informed her father and requested that she be taken back.

3.3 It is stated that, on four occasions at Shivamogga and on three occasions at Bengaluru, panchayaths were convened with a view to resolve the marital dispute between the parties. On each such occasion, the respondent and his family members are said to have assured that they would reform their conduct; however, the alleged ill-treatment continued unabated.

3.4 It is further alleged that on 21.04.2014, at the instigation of his parents and sister, the respondent attempted to strangulate the appellant, from which she narrowly escaped. When the appellant was about to lodge a complaint with the police, the respondent and his family members allegedly exerted pressure through neighbours not to report the matter, assuring her that the respondent’s sister would be shifted to a paying guest accommodation and that his mother would return to Bhadravathi. However, the respondent is said to have resumed the ill-treatment within a few days.

3.5 It is also stated that, on 27.04.2014, the appellant’s father reported the alleged incidents of harassment to the respondent’s employer requesting that he be counselled to mend his behaviour. Further, on 29.04.2014, the respondent’s mother is alleged to have manhandled the appellant and inflicted scratch injuries on her hands. At the request of the respondent’s father, this incident too was not reported to the police.

3.6 It is further pleaded that, on 11.06.2014, the respondent sent the appellant to Shivamogga in the early hours and insisted that his demands be fulfilled before 12.06.2014. He allegedly informe