The court established that unsubstantiated allegations of adultery and abusive behavior by one spouse can constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

DEEPA SHARMA, J.

1. This is a respondent wife’s appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, questioning the decree and order for dissolution of marriage by a Family Court, on the grounds spelt out by Sections 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”) on a petition preferred by the husband.

2. The facts necessary to decide the appeal are that the parties got married on 21.04.2002 at New Delhi and were blessed with a son-Aditya, on 16.07.2003. They resided together in premises belonging to the appellant’s mother-in-law-who used to work as a government teacher in Haryana. The mother in law retired from service on 31.08.2006. The appellant’s husband, his father and brothers lived in the matrimonial home, besides her. She was the eldest daughter in law in the house. The household did not employ any maid-servant. The husband claimed divorce on the ground that the wife was claiming one fourth share in the residential house or Rs. 20 lakhs in lieu of that and used to pressurize him to live separately from his parents and other family members. It was alleged that she also refused to cook food and do the household chores and that she was in the habit of picking up quarrels. Furthermore, according to the husband, the appellant used to frequently use abusive and filthy language and quarrel with his mother whenever she used to come over to Delhi. It was alleged that she had no regard or respect for the husband and his family members and frequently used to say that he and other members of the family “ate like animals” (“jaanwar ki tarah khate hai”). On 01.08.2007 she refused to participate in the birthday celebration of their son and also refused to wear a Sari the husband had bought for her for the occasion. She reluctantly joined the cake-cutting ceremony in dirty clothes and also insulted the husband, and abused him and his friends. Upon intervention she slapped him in the presence of the assembled guests who thereafter left the party without eating food.

3. The husband alleged that on the occasion of Karwa Chauth on 29.10.2007, the appellant broke her Mangal Sutra (necklace) and removed her sindoor (vermillion mark) and insisted that to her, he was dead; she wished to be treated like a widow. Also in November, 2007 on the occasion of Diwali at the time of Lakshmi Puja she threw the Puja Thali. It was alleged that she also refused to serve tea to his friends on 31.12.2007 and said that their residence was not a Dharamshala. She also refused to cohabit with him after birth of their son on 16.07.2003 and started accusing him of having illicit relation with other girls and his colleagues. The wife had-according to the husband maligned his reputation in society and caused him mental cruelty. Furthermore, alleged the husband, the appellant deserted him and the child who was barely five years of age on 07.07.2008 without any cause. After about two years on 06.07.2010 she along with her father, uncle, aunt, brother and two other male members came to the husband’s residence and threatened him. The police was called in. Though she lodged a complaint at the Police Station Dabri, no action was initiated and the police advised her to approach CAW cell. Thereafter she filed a complaint in CAW Cell on 16.07.2010, which was dropped after investigation as no truth was found in that. The said complaint was however reopened after one and a half years with sole intention to harass the petitioner and his family members.

4. The appellant in the written statement controverted all contentions urged that she had been subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of the house on 06.07.2010 and she lodged a complaint vide DD No. 35-B at Police Station Dabri. She admits that she filed a complaint in CAW Cell on 16.07.2010. It was averred that the allegations of cruelty were baseless and unfounded; rather the husband had in reality deserted her. It was alleged that the husband and his family were falsely alleging that the appellant was g