The judgment emphasized the need for positive proof of cruelty in seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and highlighted the absence of statutory grounds for divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 485/2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned ADJ dismissed the appellants petition seeking divorce from the respondent on the grounds of cruelty.

Background facts

2. The marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on 24.11.1999 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is the case of the appellant that that six days after the marriage on 30.11.1999, parents of the respondent took her away on the pretext of her having to attend classes for a computer course. Thereafter, the respondent joined appellant on 3.2.2000. It is stated that she behaved like stranger; she was insisting on living separately; hardly entered the kitchen to help his mother in the household work and started creating scenes in the house unnecessarily. She again left for maternal house with her brother on 15.3.2000 and the appellant brought her back on 3.4.2000. On 30.4.2000 when she received call that her mother was seriously ill, the respondent left the matrimonial home again. According to the appellant, when he went to the house of the respondents parents, he found her mother to be hale and hearty and he was assured that the respondent would join his society within a fortnight. It is stated that on 15.8.2000, the respondents father along with other relatives, went to the house of maternal uncle of appellant and informed that the appellants father had evil eyes on the respondent; that he used to insist that respondent should serve liquor to him and made other scandalous allegations. When on 19.8.2000, one Bhudev Shanna along with Mohinder Singh, Pramod Sharma and Naresh Tyagi, Advocate visited the house of the respondent and confronted her father demanding to know the reasons for making such scandalous allegations, the parents of the respondent started threatening that the whole of the appellants family would be implicated in false cases.

3. In her written statement, the respondent denied the allegations. Further she alleged ill-treatment suffered by her on the hands of the appellant and his parents and the demand made by them to fetch a sum of Rs. 4 lacs from her father. She averred that she was cruelly treated from 3.4.2000 onwards. She made specific allegations in para 7(4) of the written statement that on 15.4.2000 when she was changing her wearing apparels in her room, her father in law pushed the closed doors of the room, lifted the respondent on to his lap and with connivance of the respondents mother-in-law got her photographed. In para 7(8) she alleged that mother of the appellant used to pressurize the respondent to have illicit relations with people who were promoting the export business of the appellant and upon the respondents refusal threatened to get the respondents brother kidnapped. In para 16, she again adverted to the fact that the father of the appellant was having evil eyes on the respondent. After the written statement was filed, the petition was sought to be amended to incorporate specific pleas of cruelty arising out of the scandalous allegations made in the written statement. However by an order dated 15.7.2002 the application for amendment was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the appellant could always file a rejoinder to deny the allegations.

4. On behalf of the appellant, three witnesses were examined. These were the appellant himself, his father and mother. Likewise the respondent examined herself and her father and mother as witnesses. Lengthy cross-examinations took place of these witnesses. The trial Court found that each of the witnesses stood by the statements made before the Court on oath and were unable to be shaken in cross-examination. The trial Court after a detailed analysis of the evidence on record concluded that the appellant had failed to prove his version of the events and that the version of the respondent appear to be correct. As r