The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the provisions of Section 14 of the Family Court's Act, the relevance and admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and the appellant's responsibility to establish the allegations made against the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (Oral). - The names of the parties be redacted in the record as notified hereinabove. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.02.2021 rendered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi in HMA petition No. 687/2015. The Family Court has decreed the said divorce petition preferred by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife finding that the ground of cruelty under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been made out by him against the appellant.

2. The parties were married on 06.05.2014. They hardly lived together and separated on 30.07.2014. Even during this period, they were not living together all the time, since the respondent went away to Australia after the marriage, and the appellant joined him later in Australia. The instances relied upon by the respondent-husband to establish perpetration of the cruelty have been set out in the impugned judgment. We may cull out the following paragraphs from the impugned judgment:

"110. Now, coming to the facts of the present case and after going through the evidence of parties and other witnesses, I am the considered view petitioner has duly proved on record that respondent has lodged the false complaint against the petitioner, before Australian Police, as no action has been taken against him by Australian Police, as is clear from email Ex. PW1/J. It is worth noting that respondent has not placed on record any material to show that Australian police has lodged any prosecution against the petitioner, on her complaint, after her return to India.

111. Further, the petitioner was terminated from his service by his employer, as is clear from the documents Ex. PW 1/K1 to PW1/K3, PW1/L and PWl/M. It is worth noting that during trial Ld. Counsel for respondent has raised objections on the exhibition of these document on the ground of mode of proof. But, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the objections because it is the own case of respondent that her spouse visa was cancelled by the Australian Govt., vide Ex. RW-1/7 after the termination of the service of petitioner, by his employer. It is worth noting that respondent was granted spouse visa on the basis of employment of petitioner in Australia. It is also worth noting in the document Ex. PW 1/K1 the petitioner has clearly mentioned that he had to tender his resignation, as his wife had filed multiple false Court cases in Delhi and due to his matrimonial dispute his deputation was terminated from Wipro Suncrop Bank Project in Brisbane Australia. After his return to India, he was selected for Lloyds Bank Project of Wipro and his US visa was initiated in 2015. But due to his frequent visits in court, he could not join that project. Thereafter, he was allotted billable for US Bank project and was to work from Banglore. But, after two months of back ground verification, he was released from that project also. Thereafter, he could not get any project in Delhi NCR, as per directions of Wipro HR and he had no other option other than to resign from Wipro. His resignation was accepted by his employer vide Ex. PW1/K3.

112. Further, Ex. PW 1/L is the letter, alleged written by the sister of respondent, Pinky Verma herself, to the employer of petitioner, wherein she had made query about the status of the petitioner regarding his employment.

113. Further, petitioner has also duly proved on record that the respondent had lodged a false dowry case against him and his family members vide FIR 149/15 u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC PS Farsh Bazar, as the petitioner and his family members and relatives have already been discharged from the case by the court of Ld. MM vide order dated 173.2020.

114. Further, the petitioner has duly proved on record that respondent also wanted divorce from him as she had filed a Judicial Separation Petition against him and also wrote to the Australian Police vide Ex. PW I/AC that she was going to file a divorce case against