The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the grounds of cruelty and desertion as per Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the reliance on judicial pronouncements to establish instances of mental cruelty and intentional abandonment.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal assails the judgment dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge wherein the petitioner-Suresh Jindal (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) who had sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the HMA) against his wife Smt. Archana Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had been granted a decree of divorce on both the afore noted grounds.

2. This appeal has been filed by the wife. She is aggrieved by the findings returned by the Trial Court.

3. The parties had been married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 20.06.1995 at Delhi. Their marriage was consummated. One male child namely Ashutosh was born out of their wedlock on 27.6.1996. The contention of the husband was that after the solemnization of marriage, the respondent all along treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted him w.e.f. 22.06.1997 to October, 1999. She did not allow their mother to live in the matrimonial home and unnecessarily made it a prestige issue and many a times, left the matrimonial home on this pretext. After the death of his elder brother (Ram Bhagat) in January, 1997, his mother who was earlier living with Ram Bhagat became anxious and wanted to live with the petitioner and enjoy his company as also the company of her grandchild but the respondent did not permit his mother to stay with them as a result of which his mother was compelled to stay with his uncles and relatives. His mother felt neglected. Even when his mother used to come to his house on a transitional visit she was treated badly. The brother of the respondent always added fuel to the fire and instead of trying to dispel the duel which had arisen between the parties, he would always enlarge it. The respondent left the matrimonial home in June 1997 leaving their seven month old child in the company of her husband. However with the intervention of the well-wishers in the family, she agreed to return back after a period of two months on the assurance that she would reform herself. She however continued to remain arrogant. She insisted on celebrating their marriage anniversary and birthday of their child which fell in June, 1997 notwithstanding the fact that the elder brother of the petitioner had passed away only in January, 1997 and the petitioner was not inclined to carry out any celebrations in his house for a period of one year which he wanted to treat as mourning period on account of the death of his brother. Respondent finally left the matrimonial home on 04.12.2000 along with their child and all costly items including jewellery. Thereafter all efforts to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home failed.

4. Further submissions in the petition disclose that the respondent lost no opportunity in degrading the petitioner and depicting him as a greedy dowry monger. She filed a maintenance petition before the concerned Court under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act on 26.06.2000 and the allegations made against the respondent were not only coarse but damaged his repute. Present petition was accordingly filed seeing a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

5. In the written statement filed by the respondent, she had controverted these allegations. Her contention was that the petitioner was taking advantage of his own wrongs. It was denied that the respondent did not allow the mother of the petitioner to stay in their matrimonial home. There was no lapse on the part of the respondent. The petitioner and her mother treated her with cruelty and turned her out from her matrimonial home on 04.12.2000 at 11:00 PM on account of an illegal demand of Rs. 1 lac which the respondent was unable to meet. It was denied that the respondent did not like the idea of her mother-in-law staying in the house and made it a prestige issue; the respondent being a sensitive and educated lady had always given full respect and regard to her in-laws. On