IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage can justify the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the applicant/husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 24/09/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.04-A/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) has dismissed the application filed by the applicant seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955. Parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the trial Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the applicant/husband on 05/02/2019 filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, alleging inter-alia, that his marriage with the non-applicant/wife was solemnized on 18/02/2002 in accordance with their customs and out of their wedlock, two daughters namely Awneet Kaur and Ranpreet Kaur have born, who are living with the non-applicant/wife. According to the applicant, his wife is a short tempered lady and used to get annoyed oftenly, if things are not happening as per her wish and always used to disrespect with his parents while using filthy languages and used to pressurized him to live separately from his parents, who are the old aged parents. It is alleged in the petition that she physically and mentally tortured him and his parents in the year 2013 and, it is alleged further that a suggestion was given by her father to live on his another house which is situated at Sarthipara (Darripara) and, on the basis of the said suggestion, a meeting was convened by his community and as per the decision taken therein, his wife and he started living separately in the month of December, 2013 alongwith the daughters on his said another house, but despite of that, her behaviour was not changed and instead became more cruel with him. It is alleged further that because of her cruel behaviour, he filed a petition for divorce which was, however, dismissed on his non-prosecution on 15/02/2016. It is alleged further that he is living separately since the month of December, 2013 and contended further that after the dismissal of his claim in 2015, a false report was not only lodged by his wife in the year 2016 against him, his parents and brother, but a false complaint was also lodged against his brother as well for the termination of his government job. It is the further contention of the applicant that his wife has kept both the daughters and they were not permitted to meet him and instead projecting a bad image of him, so as to deprive him from his love and affections towards his daughters, therefore, he has been constrained to file this petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955.

3. While denying the aforesaid allegations, it is pleaded by the non-applicant/ wife that immediately after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry which was made by her husband and in-laws and, contended further that when she has given a girl child, they started misbehaving her and was being assaulted while using filthy words and wanted to drive her out from the matrimonial home, so as to get the solemnization of his second marriage. It is contended further that owing to the alleged ill treatment, she lodged as many as three complaints at Police Station Kawardha, but has withdrawn the same only for considering the welfare of the daughters. It is contended further that her husband was involved in many businesses and 8 to 9 servants are working in his shop at the monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- and, income of her husband is more than Rs.1 Lakh per month, yet he is giving the maintenance amount of Rs.9,200/- per month only which is insufficient for the education of her daughters. It is contended further that in the month of Jul