Unfounded allegations and complaints affecting the job of a spouse amount to mental cruelty, justifying divorce on the ground of cruelty.

JUDGMENT

A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. - This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the husband takes exception to the decree for divorce passed by the Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. A-459/2012 on 25.09.2014.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 27.04.2008. Out of the said wedlock a child was born on 03.03.2009. Thereafter the appellant and his family members started ill-treating the respondent. During Diwali-2010, the family members of the appellant quarreled with the respondent and after taking away all the gold articles she was driven away from the matrimonial house. On 06.12.2010 she filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. These proceedings however were withdrawn on 25.04.2012. Thereafter on 14.05.2012 the wife filed Petition No.A- 459/2012 seeking a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In the said proceedings it was alleged that the appellant and his family members were ill-treating the respondent physically as well as mentally. The respondent used to be abused time and again by the appellant and his family members as a result of which there were frequent quarrels between them and the respondent was also beaten on some occasions. She was required to do all the household work and other family members did not help her in that work. The respondent was required to approach Mahila Cell with her grievances and after understanding given to both the parties, they started residing together. However this arrangement did not continue for long. The respondent after finding it unsafe to continue the relationship filed the present proceedings.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant the allegations as made were denied. It was denied that there was any occasion to appear before the Mahila Cell and give any undertaking as pleaded by the respondent. It was also pleaded that the appellant's sister was residing on the ground floor and the allegations made against her about ill-treating the respondent were denied. In the specific pleading it was stated that the respondent and her family members belonged to 'Rajput' caste but they had obtained spurious caste certificate of belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta' for securing employment.

4. The parties led evidence before the Family Court and after considering the same the learned Judge of the Family Court held that the respondent had proved that the appellant was treating with her cruelty. It was further held that the allegation of desertion was not proved since continuous period of not less than two years prior to filing of the divorce petition had not elapsed. Hence by the impugned judgment, the Family Court proceeded to pass a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations with regard to cruelty being inflicted by the appellant were not duly proved by the respondent. He referred to the evidence on record to contend that except normal wear and tear of marital life there was no substantial evidence brought on record by the respondent to prove the ground of cruelty. The appellant's sister was not residing with the appellant but was residing separately on the ground floor premises of the joint family. There was no truth in the allegation that the appellant's sister was interfering in the marital life of the appellant and was ill- treating the respondent. He further stated that the appellant's brothers were also residing separately. In fact it was the respondent who had left the matrimonial house on 06.11.2010 and was not ready to reside with the appellant. Though it was the fact that the parties had approached the Mahila Cell, same indicated that the appellant did not intend to separate from the respondent but wanted to continue the marital ties. It was then submitted that the appellant had brought on record sufficient ev