The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of 'cruelty' under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and 'desertion' under Section 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and its application to the evidence presented in the case.

Headnote:
Family Court Appeal - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 (1) (i-a), Section 13 (1) (i-b), Section 9 - [Cruelty, Desertion, Restitution of Conjugal Rights] - [Section 13 (1) (i-a), Section 13 (1) (i-b), Section 9] - The court discussed the meaning of 'cruelty' as per Section 13 (1) (i-a) and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the respondent failed to prove the allegations of ill-treatment and cruelty by the appellant. The court also examined the grounds for desertion under Section 13 (1) (i-b) and concluded that the appellant had continuously deserted the respondent for more than two years without justifiable reason. The court dismissed the appeal for restitution of conjugal rights, stating that the appellant had failed to establish the claim.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent sought a divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, while the appellant sought a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court granted the divorce and dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent alleged ill-treatment, mental and physical cruelty, and desertion by the appellant, while the appellant claimed that the respondent had deserted him without justifiable cause.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment by the appellant. It concluded that the appellant had continuously deserted the respondent for more than two years without justifiable reason. The court dismissed the appeal for restitution of conjugal rights, stating that the appellant had failed to establish the claim.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of cruelty, desertion, and the claim for restitution of conjugal rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment by the appellant. It concluded that the appellant had continuously deserted the respondent for more than two years without justifiable reason. The court dismissed the appeal for restitution of conjugal rights, stating that the appellant had failed to establish the claim.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed by the Family Court, affirming the decree of divorce and rejecting the claim for restitution of conjugal rights.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J. - The present appeals are filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act thereby taking exception to the common Judgment and decrees dated 30-03-2021 passed by family court Ahmednagar in Petition No. A-120 / 2018 and Petition No. A-22 / 2019. The appellant is the husband in both the appeals. (Hereafter husband is referred to as "the appellant" and the wife is referred to as "the respondent" for the sake of brevity).

2. The respondent / wife filed Petition No. A-120 / 2018 seeking decree of divorce u/s 13 (1) (i-a) & (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereas Appellant / Husband filed Petition No. A-22 / 2019 for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court allowed petition granted the decree of divorce on both grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. However, petition for restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed.

3. The respondent pleaded in her petition that, marriage was solemnized on 19-02-2016 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the respondent started co-habitation with the appellant. However, the appellant and his family members began ill-treating her. She was insulted for the reason of not making proper arrangement in the marriage. The appellant doubted her character, tortured her mentally and physically. The family members of the appellant used to abuse and assault her.

4. The appellant had a job at Pune. He raised the demand of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondent under pretext of purchasing house at Pune. However, due to non-fulfillment of the demand, appellant abused, assaulted and gave insulting treatment to her. The respondent was driven out of matrimonial house within 15 days of the marriage. Since then, she has been residing at her maternal house.

5. The attempts were made to bring reconciliation by parents and relatives of respondent. However, all these attempts turned futile because of demand of Rs.3,00,000/- raised by appellant. It is also the case of the respondent that on 24-07-2016, the appellant along with two strangers had been to her maternal house and raised the demand of Rs. 3,00,000/-. He assaulted the respondent and hurled abusive language towards father and brother of the respondent.

6. It is further case of the respondent that she made a written complaint to the Police Station at Ahmednagar on 30-07-2016 against the appellant. Further Criminal Misc. Application No. 764/2016 was filed by her under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the D.V. Act") against him. The FIR was also lodged by her father with Police Station. However, all these proceedings were withdrawn on a compromise.

7. The appellant filed his written statement and denied adverse allegations. He stated that the respondent has deserted him without justifiable cause. The respondent is a BAMS doctor and better qualified than the him. She was never interested in co-habiting with him. He states that she never resided with him. Her father was against their marriage and he would threaten the appellant of committing suicide if he attempted to take her with him. It is also the case of the appellant that he made attempts of conciliation and also issued notice for restitution of conjugal rights to her through an advocate. He submitted that he was always ready and willing to co-habit with the respondent.

8. The appellant in his petition filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent stated that the respondent refused to co-habitation without reasonable excuse. In spite of his attempts to bring her for co-habitation, she refused. He stated that while respondent was prosecuting her B.A.M.S. course in Ayurveda College, both of them had decided to marry. After completion of B.A.M.S. course, they performed the marriage. Her family members were not present at the marriage. It is also stated that the false complaint was filed against him by father of the responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document