The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous mental and physical cruelty by one spouse towards the other can warrant the grant of divorce.

JUDGMENT :

(Goutam Bhaduri, J.) :

Heard.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30/11/2021 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. Case No. 124/2019, whereby the divorce sought by the wife/appellant on various grounds, was dismissed. Hence, the wife is in appeal before this Court.

2. Brief facts as pleaded by the wife is that the parties got married on 11/05/2005. It was a love marriage and was against the wishes of the family members, therefore, there had been a mental cleavage between the family members for acceptance of marriage. The wife/appellant contended that after the marriage she joined her matrimonial home, but because the marriage was not accepted, the family members of the husband/respondent did not behave well, however, it continued. Subsequently, the husband/respondent stopped working at his place of job which led to frustration to husband. In a result, the wife joined the job, but it was objected by the husband. Further, on trivial issues, the quarrels erupted between the parties and the wife left the job. The wife/appellant further contended that to raise income she started conducting tuition to the students and even before the students too, the character of wife/appellant was assassinated and perforced the wife to stop the tuition classes. She contended that because of fact that she performed the love marriage, she was not able to divulge these facts to her parents. In course of her stay, a baby girl was born, but after the birth of the child, the behavior of the husband/respondent became even more aggravated as it was expected by him that a baby boy would be born. She further contended that she joined the school to earn for family and for various reasons in performance of official duties, when she used to come late, the husband/respondent used to allege that she has illicit relations with the Principal and other male members of the school staff. In consequence thereof, she was physically assaulted and eventually she was thrown out of the house on 09/04/2015. Therefore, on these various grounds of cruelty, the divorce was sought for by the wife.

3. The husband/respondent, on the contrary denied adverse allegations and stated that the marriage was accepted by the families of both the parties and before the marriage itself the husband/respondent used to work as a software Engineer and by virtue of his job, he used to cater the needs of the family. He denied the allegations that since he was not working, the wife was forced to work. The allegation of physical assault was also denied. In the additional pleading, the husband/respondent stated that the wife was under the influence of her father, therefore, she did not want to come back, and he has not done any mischief or cruelty towards the wife and he wanted to stay with the wife.

4. The learned Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, framed four issues. The findings on issues of cruelty and desertion were negated, which resulted into dismissal of petition filed by the wife/appellant. Hence, this appeal by the wife/appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that no evidence was led by the husband to prove his case. He would further submit that the pleading and statement of wife/appellant would show the nature of cruelty which was meted out to the wife and the cruelty cannot be disowned by the Family Court only for the reasons that no police report was made. He would further submit that in the matrimonial cases, nature and allegations are to be appreciated from the circumstances of the case which is not akin to a criminal case. He would further submit that in absence of any evidence by the husband, the evidence led by the appellant/wife should have been accepted and accordingly the decree of divorce should have been granted as the circumstances will lead to show that both the parties are not unhappy in living separately.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit th