The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantiated evidence in claims of cruelty and desertion, as well as the recognition of baseless and reckless allegations as a form of mental cruelty.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as ‘HMA’) assails the judgment & decree dated 20.03.2009 passed in HMA 741/06 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ allowed the petition preferred by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, granting a decree of dissolution of marriage in his favour and against the appellant-wife.

2. The parties were married on 17.06.1984 at Varanasi, U.P. No issue was born out of the wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant treated him with cruelty, and deserted him on 12.09.1999. She had denied sexual relations on one pretext or the other after 13.06.1997. It was further alleged that the appellant suffered from psychological and physical deformities, and used to pick quarrels with the respondent. She created ugly scenes several times in the presence of family members and friends of the respondent. She was suffering from tubercular endometritis and blockage of both fallopian tubes. Further, when the respondent returned on 02.10.1999 from his training in Manchester, he found his house locked. He came to know that the appellant had left the house on 12.09.1999 and deserted him.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant-wife, she denied all the allegations. She stated that the marriage was solemnized on 03.06.1985, and not on 17.06.1984. She stated that she never denied sexual relations to the respondent. She also denied that she suffered from tubercular endometritis and blockage of both fallopian tubes. She claimed that it was the respondent who gave her contraceptive pills to avoid pregnancy till after 2-3 years of marriage. This had affected her fertility. She also stated that it was the respondent, who had forced the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, as he had extra-marital relations with one SJ.

4. After the relevant issues were framed, both the parties led their evidence in support of their cases. The Trial Court on assessing the evidence on record, passed the decree of dissolution of marriage, both under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of HMA.

5. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent-husband had successfully established the cruelty caused to him by the appellant, on account of his being deprived sex. Moreover, the appellant had made serious allegations impinging on the character of the respondent, which remained unsubstantiated. The same also caused mental cruelty to the respondent. The Court also came to the conclusion that the appellant deserted the respondent on 12.09.1999. Consequently, the marriage was dissolved between the parties. Hence, the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant did not desert the company of the respondent. She never left the matrimonial home willingly or with the intention to desert the company of the respondent. In fact, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home by the nephew of the respondent while he was away in the UK on 12.09.1999. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant deserted the respondent. The appellant in her cross-examination stated as follows:

“Vol. I was forced to leave the matrimonial home as nephew of the petitioner first asked me to leave before petitioner comes back but when I did not listen to him, he locked the door from inside and I had no option but to go elsewhere.”

7. On the aspect of cruelty, the appellant submits that the appellant had never denied sexual relations to the respondent. On the other hand, it was the respondent who denied sexual relations to the appellant. He did not want children and gave contraceptive pills to the appellant to prevent her from conceiving. This further resulted in health problems to the appellant. In her cross examination, she deposed as follows:

“It is incorrect to suggest that I was reluctant to have sexual relations with the petitioner after the marriage. According to me, t