The court clarified the evidentiary requirements for proving allegations of cruelty and adultery in divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, and emphasized the limited grounds for granting a decree of divorce.

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J. :

” This is an appeal, under S. 15 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 7th July, 2012, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, in Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 01 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the suit on contest, the suit having arisen out of matrimonial dispute seeking, under S. 3(1)(i)(i-a) (sic) 13(1)(i), (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a decree of divorce. The appellant-husband herein was the petitioner before the Court below.

2. The matter has been placed for hearing under O. 41, R. 11 of the C.P.C. and is being disposed of, finally, at this stage itself.

3. From the impugned judgment and decree, it would appear that the appellant and respondent were married as per Hindu rites and customs on 12-5-2003. In his petition, seeking divorce under S. 3(1)(i)(i-a) (sic) 13 (1)(i), (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant alleged that the behaviour of respondent-wife, from the very first day of their marriage, had been quite abnormal and despite the appellant” s best efforts, the respondent did not mend her ways. He alleged that he suspected that the respondent had been having and maintaining illicit relationship with many persons and despite the fact that the appellant had no sexual contact with the respondent since March, 2007, their last cohabitation being on 16-2-2007, he learnt that respondent-wife was carrying pregnancy of 5 to 6 months. It further transpires from the order under appeal that the appellant further alleged that the respondent had earlier refused to come back to matrimonial home and, thus, deserted the petitioner.

4. It would further appear, from the order under appeal, that the respondent, while contesting the suit, denied the allegation of cruelty as well as her illicit relationship with any person and asserted that non-fulfilment of the demand for dowry, made by the husband-appellant and his near relatives, was the reason behind institution of the matrimonial suit. She denied that she had illicit relationship with any person.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings, following three issues were framed by the learned Court below :”

I. ' Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage?

II. Whether the respondent is living in adultery?

III. Relief.'

6. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings before the Family Court. The appellant examined, in his favour, four witnesses, who included his father (P.W.-1), Mother (P.W.-2), Uncle (P.W.-3) and the appellant (P.W.-4) himself. The mother of the respondent and the respondent herself deposed as (D.W.-1) and (D.W.-2) respectively before the Court below.

7. This is not disputed that the respondent had filed a complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 899C/2009, alleging commission of offence, under S. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant and his family members.

8. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it appears that the appellant (P.W.-4), in his evidence, before the Family Court, deposed that he had not stated the names of the persons from whom he had learnt about the character of his wife. It also transpires that the appellant admitted that he had not raised any grievance or lodge any complaint before any person or body alleging ill-treatment at the hands of his wife, the answering respondent.

9. Upon analyzing the evidence of the father (PW 1) and the mother (PW 2) of the appellant and taking into account the evidence of the respondent and her mother, learned Court below came to a finding that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty after marriage. Learned Court below found such allegations of cruelty against the respondent-wife to be vague and not specific. As regards the allegation of adultery, learned Court below found that the appellant could not prove the allegation of adultery, firstly, for