The behavior of a spouse resulting in mental cruelty can justify the grant of divorce under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - Since both these appeals filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 take exception to the common judgment of the Family Court dated 02/05/2017 thereby allowing the petition for divorce filed by the respondent herein and dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant herein they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. The facts in brief that are relevant for adjudication of these appeals are that on 24/10/2007 the respondent-husband married the appellant-wife. Out of that wedlock a daughter was born on 28/03/2009. It is the case of the husband that in the initial period after marriage they resided together along with the mother of the husband and his two younger brothers. The wife however was not interested in living with the entire family and she used to frequently visit her parents' house. On 22/07/2008 the wife filed a false complaint with the police Authorities. At the intervention of the Mahila Cell they started residing together. After the birth of the child on 28/03/2009 the wife again returned to her parents' house and despite efforts taken by the husband she was not willing to return. Ultimately the husband through his counsel issued a legal notice to the wife on 26/09/2009 calling her to resume cohabitation. Thereafter with the intervention of his relatives the wife returned to the matrimonial house on 14/04/2010. A Samzotapatra (Deed of understanding) was prepared and signed by both the parties in which they agreed to reside together. The wife further agreed that she would not leave the matrimonial house and would take care of the husband and his family members. However, in view of the reluctance of the wife to reside with other family members of the husband he was required to make alternate arrangements for residence. Despite that the wife continued quarreling with the husband which resulted in mental and physical cruelty to the husband. Hence on 27/01/2012 the husband filed the petition under Section 10 (l)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short "the Act of 1869") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. In the written statement filed by the wife she denied all the allegations as made by the husband. On the contrary she pleaded that it was the husband and his family members who were illtreating her resulting in cruel treatment. Despite efforts taken by her to reside happily with her husband the same was not possible. According to the wife it was the husband who was not interested in continuing to reside with her and he was interested in severing the matrimonial ties.

4. In July 2013 the wife filed a petition under Section 32 of the Act of 1869 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded that despite her sincere effort to resume co-habitation the husband was not interested in doing so. The husband filed his written statement in those proceedings and denied all adverse allegations. It was pleaded that the wife had herself left the matrimonial house and she was reluctant to reside with the husband. Considering the cruel treatment inflicted by the wife the husband stated that the chances of reconciliation were remote.

5. Both the aforesaid proceedings were tried together. The parties led evidence with the husband examining himself and another witness Vimalbai to substantiate his prayer for grant of divorce. On the other hand the wife examined herself as well as her mother to substantiate her stand. After considering the aforesaid evidence the learned Judge of the Family Court recorded the finding that the husband had proved that the wife had treated him with cruelty. It held the husband entitled to grant of decree of divorce on that count. Consequently the petition for restitution of conjugal rights came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved the wife has preferred the aforesaid two appeals.

6. Shri N.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the wife submitted that the evidence on record brought by the husband was insufficient to gr