Point of Law : Matrimonial Dispute - Cruelty - None of instances of cruelty, pleaded in plaint, would amount to commission of cruelty within meaning of Section 13 of Act, 1955 nor does it satisfy the legal requirement of establishing marital cruelty - Seeking divorce under Section 13 under appellate jurisdiction, court cannot allow a decree of divorce on a ground not covered under S. 13 of Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

The following judgment of the Court is delivered by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice.

1. This appeal by the appellant/husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would call in question the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, refusing to dissolve marriage between the parties.

2. Earlier by judgment and decree dated 27-10-2014 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in civil suit No.72-A/2011 allowed the suit of the husband (appellant herein) to dissolve the marriage between the parties. However, in FAM No.112 of 2014 preferred by the wife (respondent herein) the judgment and decree was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 7-7-2017 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for rendering fresh judgment. The remand order was made for the reason that on the earlier occasion the trial Court had only reproduced all statements of witnesses made in the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) and recorded finding in respect of cruelty without any discussion or appreciation of evidence. This Court found that in most of the paragraphs either pleadings have been reproduced or the statements made by the parties under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC were reproduced.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the parties were married as per the customs and rites prevailing amongst Budda tribes in February, 2004. Two children namely; Tanishk & Divyanshi are born out of their wedlock. The respondent-wife left the matrimonial house and the company of the appellant-husband in July, 2010 and since thereafter she is residing with her children at Basantpur, Ward No.38, Rajnandgaon. At the time of marriage, the appellant was serving as Constable in 8th Battalion, Reserve Police, Rajnandgaon, whereas the respondent was working as Shiksha Karmi Grade III at Fafammar, therefore, the appellant obtained a house on rent at village Gendatola for her residence. In the initial stage of marriage their relation was normal, but, according to the appellant, after about six months, the respondent’s behavior became cruel.

4. The appellant further pleaded that the respondent obtained loan for her brother from a local money lender by pledging her ornaments and the said fact came to his notice when the money lender approached his father for repayment of loan. His father felt embarrassed as the respondent had obtained loan without seeking permission. At the time of Deepawali festival his father advised her not to do so, but the respondent lost her temper and made allegation that the appellant and his family members are greedy. She also used filthy language, which were derogatory for every woman and particularly for a daughter-in-law. The respondent thereafter started picking quarrels on petty issues. Her mother and sister also started interfering in the inter se dispute between the couple. One day, when he returned from duty, he did not find the respondent at home and hence he made enquiries from the land lady who informed that she had gone to her parental house as his son Tanishk was not feeling well. The appellant felt that the respondent is ignoring him as she has again moved out of house without informing him. He straightaway went to her parental home at Bijepaar and asked her why she left the house without informing him. On this the respondent started indecently abusing him and her mother (mother-in-law of the appellant) slapped him. On another occasion he went to another village for watching Madaiand returned at about 10.00 pm, he called her loudly for opening the door, but the respondent did not open the door. He somehow opened the door with the help of neighbours and asked the respondent why she did not awake, but the respondent innuendo towards a man standing there and said that she will sleep with him in front of you (appellant). The appellant shocked by hearing all this.

5. The appellant also pleaded that when he wanted to make love with