IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of divorce based on cruelty and desertion, the court will carefully consider the evidence and material available on record to determine the validity of the grounds alleged by the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant/wife against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit Case No.661-A/2019, whereby the application filed by her under Sections 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant filed a Civil Suit on the grounds of cruelty and desertion enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) & 13(1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act of 1955) before the Family Court, Bilaspur, inter alia, stating that their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 07.03.2014 and after marriage, appellant joined the company of respondent and started living at Katni to lead happy marital life. It is pleaded in the plaint that after marriage of 7 days, the respondent abused in filthy language taking her mother and sister’s name and further had quarrels over trivial issues. It is further pleaded that the respondent treated her with cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. It is specifically alleged by the appellant that the appellant maintained illicit relations with one woman (AST) for the last 10 – 12 years and on account of which, he started assaulting her while hurling abuses in filthy language and he even used to threaten to kill. The appellant is fed up with the above attitude of the respondent and is also afraid of being brutal and mental behaviour by the respondent and it was harmful and painful for the appellant to live with respondent. It is stated by her that the indecent behaviour of the respondent has prompted her to leave him and to live separately from July, 2015. Thereafter, the respondent did not come to get the appellant nor did get any information from him. It is further stated by her that on account of indecent behaviour of the respondent, she has been deprived of marital happiness which has caused great trauma to her. Further pleading of the appellant is that the appellant through her advocate sent a legal notice to the respondent on 30.09.2019 alleging therein that the respondent did not come to take her back since July, 2015. Since there is no cohabitation between them from July, 2015, therefore, the appellant has been compelled to file a suit seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

3. The Civil Suit was resisted by the respondent/husband by filing written statement. Denying the allegations levelled against him, it is specifically pleaded that he is always discharging his matrimonial duties whereas it is the appellant/wife, who has left the matrimonial home and kept avoiding to come and stay with him on one pretext or other whenever he went to the appellant to bring her back. Despite this, even his relatives went to bring her back, but all his efforts went in vain, which has forced him to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 before the Family Court, District Katni (MP) wherein the appellant appeared, but only with a view to avoid living with the respondent, the appellant has filed the civil suit seeking decree of divorce from him. It is categorically denied by him that he has no illicit relations with the said woman (AST) and further pleaded that in reply to her letter dated 30.09.2019, he has also sent a letter on 21.10.2019 advising her to seek divorce. It is alleged by him that the appellant is a married woman and had already taken divorce from her first husband and by suppressing this fact his marriage was got solemnised with her and on knowing the said fact, he asked her about the same, upon which, she started quarrelling with him, however, he forgot the said thing and started living his married life with the appellant. The respondent has further pleaded that he suffered from paralysis on 11.08.2017 and he needed to take care of him, the information of which was sent to her