The unrebutted testimony of cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage were considered as significant grounds for granting a decree of divorce.

Jyoti Singh, J.

The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 5.10.2017 passed by the Family Court in HMA No. 950/2014 whereby the petition under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA") filed by the appellant/wife for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the present appeal are that the parties got married on 02.07.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. After the marriage both the parties resided together at Delhi. Marriage was consummated and one son named Harshit was born from the wedlock on 05.04.2004.

3. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the appellant/wife filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) of the HMA seeking dissolution of the marriage by passing a decree of divorce on the grounds of "cruelty" and "desertion". One of the grounds alleged in the divorce petition was that at the time of solemnization of marriage, dowry was given by the parents of the appellant which included household articles, one motorcycle, gold and silver ornaments besides several other articles. Along with this, cash amounting to Rs. 51,000/- was given at the time of Kanyadan and Rs.50,000/- was given on different functions of the marriage. Her parents had thus spent far more than their financial capacity on the wedding ceremonies itself. Despite so much having been given at the time of marriage, the respondent and his family members were not happy and when the appellant joined the matrimonial home, they expressed their disappointment over the quantum of articles received. It was pleaded by the appellant that the respondent and his family members demanded a car and a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh and pressurized the appellant to meet such demands. She was never given any love, affection and respect by the respondent or his family members. It was also alleged that the parents of the respondent taunted the appellant that good proposals with handsome dowry were available for their son and that the marriage with the appellant caused a loss to them, in every way.

4. It was alleged that after a few days of marriage, the brother of the appellant visited her matrimonial home to take her back. She narrated her suffering to him, and when he tried to talk to the respondent regarding this, he was insulted and asked to leave. Appellant's brother brought her back to the parental home. After one month, the respondent and his father visited her parental home and assured the appellant that they will not misbehave with her. However, after she returned to the matrimonial home, she found no change in the behaviour of the respondent or his family members. She alleged that the respondent would often rebuke her, that she was not beautiful and was a "fatty lady". The parents of the respondent would fight with her on petty issues and the respondent would often beat her up and even threatened to kill her, on many occasions. In fact, he even tried to actually press her neck on one occasion, with an intent to kill. She filed a number of complaints before the concerned authorities, but no action was taken.

5. As per further pleadings, in the year 2010, the appellant's father-inlaw retired and the government quarter at Minto Road was to be vacated. The father-in-law refused to take her with them and respondent took a separate quarter, without any kitchen, for her at Minto Road. It was alleged that the husband did not stay with her and their child. He only had food with her and stayed in the night at his parents" house. The appellant claims that she was looking after the small child and did not find time to do any tailoring work. She claims that the respondent did not provide her with maintenance and when she was on the verge of starvation, the respondent started beating her and asked her to bring money from her parents. On 18.06.2012, she was thrown out of the rented accommodation, along with her minor son. She returned to h