The main legal point established is the need to prove mental cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage in divorce cases.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

CM APPL. No. 13028/2017

(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception. Application stands disposed of.

MAP. APP. (FC) 58/2017

1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi in HMA No. 656/2016, wherein the marriage between the parties was dissolved by way of decree of divorce passed in favour of the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The brief background of the case is that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 22.04.2003 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Rohtak. There is no issue born out of the wedlock of the parties. The husband working in the Indian Army generally remained away from home, whereas the wife used to reside at her matrimonial house with her handicapped mother-in-law, aged about 68 years.

3. On 08.12.2009, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act on the grounds of cruelty that his wife is a short tempered person and did not behave rationally. At times, she physically assaulted his mother. On many occasions, she left his mother alone and went to her parental home for days together. She did not even allow his sisters to visit and meet their mother and lodged many criminal complaints against the husband and his family members. She used to demand money from him, failing which she threatened to commit suicide. She took all the jewellery and valuables along with her whenever she left. She also threatened to physically harm the old handicapped mother of the husband.

4. Vide judgment dated 28.01.2017, the Family Court passed a decree of divorce in favour of the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act in the following terms:-

"31. The above facts & circumstances and evidence led in this case are definitely strong enough about the nature, conduct, behavior and cruelty by the respondent which have not only caused immense mental pain, agony to the petitioner but are also such that which destroyed the entire matrimonial relationship. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, has also supported the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has proved his case within the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thus, the petitioner has brought his case within the four corners of the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA...."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Delhi did not appreciate the evidence and failed to apply the trite proposition of law governing the grant of divorce. He further contended that the Family Court has erred in granting the decree in favour of the respondent/husband by holding that the respondent had brought the case within the four corners of the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Great stress has been laid on the fact that cruel treatment had never been meted to the respondent/husband or to any of his family members by the appellant. Rather, it was the appellant/wife, who was treated with cruelty by the respondent and his family members as on one occasion, she had been poisoned by his mother and sister and had been physically assaulted. He further added that there was no cruelty committed by the appellant in as much as the respondent has not given any incident alleging the same. Learned counsel further contended that respondent/husband was medically unfit, being impotent.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

7. The respondent was granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty meted out to him by the appellant.

8. It is true that the term 'Cruelty' has not been defined anywhere in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is primarily contextual, pertaining to huma