The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of mental cruelty in marriages, the impact of long periods of separation on the matrimonial bond, and the obligation of the court to maintain the marriage status as long as possible, while recognizing when the marriage has ceased to exist.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/wife against the Respondent/Husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to assail the judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi, whereby the petition filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the appellant/wife for grant of divorce from the respondent/husband on the grounds of cruelty, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 06.05.2010 at Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust (Regd) atManvi Kalan, Near Tehsil Khekra, Bhagpat, UP according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of their wedlock.

3. It was the case of the Appellant that at the time of the marriage, she was pursuing B.Tech. from Lucknow University, and the respondent used to visit India from Canada to meet his family. It was during these visits that the respondent started following her, and expressed his love for her. Thereafter, the Appellant and Respondent became friends and started communicating with each other through telephonic calls and messages. During this time, the Respondent informed the Appellant that he was pursuing MBA from Canada, and gave his date of birth as 27.01.1983. At the time of their marriage the Appellant came to know that the actual date of birth of the respondent was 27.01.1977. However, at that time, she could not back out from the marriage out of fear.

4. The Appellant further averred that the Respondent had initially, cleverly, convinced her not to inform either of their parents about their marriage. After the marriage ceremony, the couple went to Lucknow, and then to Agra for their honeymoon, and thereafter both parties returned to their respective homes. Thereafter, the Respondent left for Canada for his job, taking along with him all marriage documents and photographs.

5. The Respondent returned to India, after one and a half years of the marriage, on 19.10.2011. Both the Appellant and the Respondent stayed in Mumbai for two days along with the respondent's sister.

6. The next time the Respondent returned to India was from 13.10.2012 to 20.11.2012. This time the parties went to Nainital on vacation for two days. The next visit of the Respondent to India was on 03.02.2014, when the parties stayed together in Delhi for one day, after which the Respondent again went back to Canada. The Appellant averred that on all these occasions, the Respondent was physically, mentally and sexually abusive towards her. Owing to the above conduct of the Respondent, the Appellant finally instituted the divorce petition on 28.04.2014.

7. The Respondent in his written statement denied all allegations and submitted that the Appellant was well aware of his age before their marriage, and that their marriage was a happy one. He further submitted that he travelled to India in 2008, when the parties stayed together for forty-five days. Thereafter, the Appellant visited in the year 2009 and then in 2010 for about two months each, when the parties spent most of their time together.

8. The respondent further averred that it was due to the pressure from the Appellant's family, that she was refusing to reside with the Appellant, as the family of the Appellant was against their inter-caste marriage. If the Appellant was given a choice, she would choose to live with the respondent.

9. Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their pleadings. The Family Court came to the conclusion that the Appellant was not able to establish that she was subjected to cruelty - whether physical or mental. The Family Court was of the view that she has not been able to prove that the conduct of the respondent amounted to cruelty within the parameters of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Rather, it was the Appellant who had committed cruelty on her husband, by concealing her marital status and by leveling several non-specific allegations reg