The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific instances of cruelty, including physical and mental abuse, threats of suicide, and denial of conjugal rights, can constitute grounds for seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed by the learned ADJ (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 323/2010 preferred by the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife. By the impugned judgment, the learned ADJ decreed the petition preferred by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA against the appellant/wife, thereby holding that the respondent/husband has been subjected to cruelty by the appellant/wife, which were found to be grave and weighty. Consequently, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce.

2. The parties were married at Delhi on 03.02.2005. One male child was born out of the wedlock on 30.12.2005. The allegations of the respondent-husband and the counter allegations of the appellant-wife are set out in the impugned judgment and the same are, therefore, not being reproduced herein.

3. The learned ADJ framed the issue whether the appellant/wife had treated the respondent/husband with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage. In support of his case, the respondent/husband examined himself as PW-1. He also produced one Sh. PM as PW-2, who lives in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial home. On the other hand, the appellant examined herself as RW-1. The respondent/husband/PW-1 deposed on the lines of his allegations made in the petition is his examination-in-chief on affidavit. The learned ADJ observed that he was not cross examined about the several incidents constituting the infliction of physical and mental cruelty upon him, on which the respondent had deposed in his examination-in-chief.

4. The learned ADJ proceeded on the basis that the appellant had neither cross examined the respondent about the incidents, nor given any suggestions to him that he was deposing falsely and thus, the same could be safely accepted as true. He held that since the appellant had not contradicted the alleged acts of cruelty, and the testimony of the respondent/husband had not been impeached, he could assume that the alleged acts of cruelty are true. While appreciating the evidence of the appellant/wife, the learned ADJ observed that the appellant sought to place reliance on medical records and medical prescriptions. However, she did not examine the author/doctor of the said record. She also did not examine any of the eye witnesses to the incidents which she had claimed were witnessed by many people. She did not even examine her parents, who were also allegedly witnesses to several incidents narrated by her. The learned ADJ held the testimony of the appellant lacks credibility and was, thus, held to be unbelievable.

5. The acts and incidents of cruelty attributed to the appellant, in respect of which the learned ADJ examined-whether they constituted cruelty as understood in law, are the following:

a) giving repeated threats to commit suicide, and even trying to commit suicide. On one occasion, the appellant brought one filled kerosene can and opened its lid, but the respondent and neighbours stopped her from doing so;

b) forcibly pushed the penis and testicles of the respondent, due to which the respondent received injuries and swelling on his private parts;

c) repeatedly slapping the respondent on various occasion;

d) taunting the respondent that he is nothing, and he can do nothing, and also he cannot satisfy her;

e) never allowing the respondent to meet with the minor child;

f) insulting and misbehaving with the respondent and his family members;

g) leaving the matrimonial home without informing the respondent, and on asking abusing and quarrelling with the respondent;

h) always quarreling with the respondent and abusing him;

i) refusal to have sex with the respondent;

j) forcing the respondent for the transfer of his property in her name.

6. The learned ADJ held that the respondent/husband had established the ground of cruelty to seek a decree of dissolution of marr