IMPORTANT POINT
Trivial disputes between spouses do not constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging such cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

(Radhakishan Agrawal, J.)

Since both the appeals involve similar question of facts and law, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellant-Husband preferred a civil suit before the Court below for dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955'), whereas respondent-wife herein has also preferred a civil suit before the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1955. Both the civil suits were registered as Civil Suit No.135-A/2017 (Nitin Naiyar v. Smt. Jyoti Naiyar) and another was registered as Civil Suit No. 89A/2016 (Smt. Jyoti Naiyar v. Nitin Naiyar). Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2021, the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G., rejected the Civil Suit No.135-A/2017 filed by the appellant- Husband while decreeing the Civil Suit No.89-A/2016 in favour of respondent-wife.

3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgments dated 24.12.2021, the appellant-husband herein preferred these appeals seeking decree of divorce in his favour while praying for setting aside the decree passed in favour of respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2012, marriage of the appellant-husband was solemnized with the respondent-wife according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Bhilai, Durg. After marriage, the respondent-wife joined the company of the appellant-husband and after some time, she started quarreling and misbehaving with the husband and his parents and exerting the pressure upon the appellant-husband to live separate from parents, which was objected by him and make her understand to live peacefully. When the mother of the appellant was suffering from cancer, the appellant explained her own responsibilities and duties towards old aged in-laws, to which the respondent-wife got annoyed and used to go to her parental home without any information and also used to pressurize him for separation. After several persuasion by the appellant / husband, there is no change in her behaviour. It is further pleaded that after marriage, she never remained in the matrimonial home for a continuous period of three months. It is also pleaded that the respondent-wife used to advise him to send old aged parents to his brother's house at Ludhiana. She also used to threaten the appellant-husband to implicate him in a false case, if he refused to live separate from his parents.

5. On 10.03.2014, the respondent-wife was operated as fibroids were found in her uterus, on account of which doctor advised her not to have physical relations for a period of six months and even after passing of six months, she could not recover and further treatment was going on and again she has been advised by the Doctor not to maintain physical relations. Despite that, the respondent-wife used to taunt him with respect to his impotency. It is also averred by the appellant-husband that before the engagement ceremony, he gave a gift in the form of vehicle activa to the respondent-wife, which she is currently using. It is also averred by him, in June, 2013, he and respondent-wife had made a trip to North India but respondent-wife did not want to keep ATM Card with her in order to bear the expenses. However, for the security reasons, in the month of May, 2013, respondent-wife had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- in the account of appellant-husband and despite that in the said tour, all the expenses were borne out by the appellant-husband. It is also averred by him that respondent-wife always pressurized him to get separated himself from his parents so that she can live independently and when he refused to do so, she started quarreling with him and left the matrimonial home on 23.12.2014. He has also averred that respondent-wife is working as Junior Engineer in C.G. Electricity Board, whereas he is working as Professor in a Private University and earn less tha