The burden of proof for claims of cruelty in divorce proceedings lies with the accusing party, and unsubstantiated allegations do not suffice for judicial separation.

JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The appellant-wife (Manorma Devi) has come up in this appeal against judgment dated 31.03.2017 and decree dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Matrimonial Case No. 127 of 2011, whereby in a petition filed by the respondent- husband (Deep Narayan @ Vijay Panjiyar) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the 1955 Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, the learned Principal Judge granted the decree of judicial separation between the parties under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant-Manorma Devi was solemnized with respondent-Deep Narayan @ Vijay Panjiyar on 07.07.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated; and three children were born out of the wedlock.

4. The pleaded case of respondent-husband in his petition filed before learned Family Court is that the marriage of the respondent with the appellant was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals at Laheriasarai, Darbhanga on 07.7.2003. In the marriage, the father of the appellant did not pay anything and all the arrangements of marriage were borne by the respondent-husband as the appellant was a beautiful girl and the respondent was liking her. After marriage, at the request of the appellant, the respondent spent a lot of money on the treatment of mother of the appellant. The respondent also provided financial help to the family of the appellant due to their weak financial conditions. Sometimes after the marriage, the respondent came to know that appellant has illicit relationship with a boy of her Maike. Somehow, the marriage was consummated and three children were born out of the wedlock. The appellant remained with the respondent till he has been giving expenses to her parents and when he stopped paying the expenses, then the appellant, under a conspiracy has filed a false case and implicated the father of the respondent. It is further alleged that on 21.03.2010, the appellant, in the absence of father of the respondent went to her maike along with her minor child and after taking gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 30,000/- she fled away. Next day, on 22.03.2010, when the father of the respondent went to her maike and asked about this fact, then her family members started abusing him and when he made protest then father and brother of the appellant assaulted the father of the respondent on his head. He, thereafter registered Laharia Sarai P.S. Case No. 119 of 2010 on 27.03.2010 under Section s 307 , 447, 323, 380, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the brothers and father of the appellant. It is further alleged that in order to save their skin, the father of the appellant has also filed Complaint Case No. 498 of 2010 on 25.03.2010 which was subsequently converted into Laheria Sarai P.S. Case No. 136 of 2010 on 07.04.2010 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 342, 498(A), 120(B), 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . In the aforesaid case, he has made false allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the respondent-husband and other family members. The appellant-wife has also filed Maintenance Case No. 164 of 2010 on 19.08.2010 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C in which the reconciliation took place and after reconciliation, the respondent took the appellant to her matrimonial house on 19.01.2011 and started living separat