The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the need to substantiate allegations and considering the impact of such conduct on the reputation and standing of the party in society.

JUDGMENT

Sharmila U Deshmukh, J. - Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

2. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

3. By this Appeal, the Appellant-wife takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 22 November 2005, passed by the Family Court (Court No.3), Pune in Petition no. A-65 of 2004, whereby the counter claim of the Respondent-husband was allowed and the marriage between the Appellant wife and Respondent husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the Appeal, the Respondent husband expired and his legal heir was brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status as before the Family Court.

4. Few facts are necessary to appreciate the controversy in issue.

On 25 October 2015, after the death of his first wife, the Respondent and Petitioner got married. In the year 2004, Petition No. A-65 of 2004 was filed by the Petitioner-wife, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, to which the Respondent-husband filed his reply and also filed a counter claim seeking decree of divorce. In the said proceedings, preliminary issue came to be framed by the Family Court, as to whether the petition by the Petitioner-wife is tenable in view of the petition filed by the petitioner for maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the passing of a decree in favour of the Petitioner-wife in PC No.84 of 2001 on 18 February 2002, which was answered against the Petitioner wife and an order dismissing the petition was passed. The Family Court then proceeded to decide the counter claim of the Respondent-husband, wherein the impugned judgment and decree dissolving the marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed and an order of payment of maintenance of Rs.2000/- p.m. to the Petitioner-wife was granted.

5. Prior to the present proceedings, the Respondent- husband had filed a petition seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty being PA No.271 of 2002 which came to be dismissed on 6 August 2003.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers and proceedings.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner wife submits that the learned Family Court Judge erred in granting the decree of divorce on the ground that the allegations made in the reply to the counter claim constitute an act of cruelty. Learned Counsel submits that in the previous litigation between the parties i.e. PA No.271 of 2002, the same allegations were leveled by the Petitioner against the Respondent and it was not held to constitute an act of cruelty. He further submits that with respect of the same allegations, the learned Family Court Judge has now passed the impugned judgment and in the same set of circumstances a decree of divorce has come to be granted. Learned Counsel submits that in the counterclaim, the Respondent has set out the alleged instances of cruelty which has not been accepted by the learned Family Court Judge and that the decree of divorce has been granted only on the ground that the allegations in the reply to the counter claim, not being proved by Petitioner, constitute an act of cruelty entitling the Respondent to a decree of divorce.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the allegations made by the Petitioner-wife constitute an act of cruelty as she has failed to substantiate the allegations and hence the learned Family Court Judge has rightly passed the decree of divorce. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following judgments.

(i) 'X' versus 'Y', reported in 2016 (3) AIR Bom R 122;

(ii) Tejas Shah vs. Ms Aditi Tejas Shah, in Family Court Appeal No. 71 of 2008 of this Court (Coram: A.S. Oka & A.K. Menon, JJ) dated 12 February 2015.

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. In our opinion, the is