The main legal point established in the judgment is that mental cruelty in matrimonial matters must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together, and the intention to commit cruelty is not a necessary element in cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Appellant impugns the judgment dated 27.07.2022, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and a decree of divorce has been passed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Family Court has been swayed by a mere suggestion given by the counsel towards the end of the cross-examination of the respondent-husband that he had filed the petition for divorce for the reason that he was having an extra marital affairs with his co-worker.

3. Learned counsel submits that there was no pleading to the said effect and the suggestion was a mere suggestion given by a counsel, who was over jealous, in his cross-examination without any instructions from the appellant. He submits, that alone cannot be a ground for grant of divorce.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations of cruelty are unsubstantiated and that there are no dates mentioned as to when the alleged cruelty has taken place.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes the same. She contends that the allegations of adultery or having an affair with the co-worker, though are not in the pleadings before the Family Court in these proceedings, but similar allegations have been levelled against the respondent-husband in the replication of the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel further submits that even if these allegations were to be ignored, respondent has sufficiently established that he was treated with cruelty.

7. We notice that in the petition filed for divorce, the respondent has specifically averred and stated the taunts and the language used by the appellant and her father against the respondent and his family. In the divorce petition, the instances of cruelty have been spelt out as under:

“4. That since beginning the nature, conduct and behaviour of the respondent and her family members was very cruel towards the petitioner and his family. The father of the respondent always used to taunt petitioner that “I am a superintendent in education department, your family is not upto our standard.” It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent also did never perform her matrimonial duties towards the petitioner and his parents. However the petitioner tried all his best to please the respondent but all in vein.

5. That the respondent, whenever the petitioner tried to make her understand on petty issues, packed her beg and left for her parental house. After the birth of children, the poor petitioner thought that everything will be alright, but all in vein. Now the respondent started leaving for her parental home along with infants. The respondent always cross questioned with the petitioner and never replied him anything in right manner. She always used to argue with petitioner and his parents in filthy and unparliamentarily language saying “2 kodi ka policewala h tera baap, mera kuch nahi bigad sakta, ministry tak pahuch hai mere papa ki.”

6. That it is pertinent to mention here that being more educated than the petitioner, the respondent always dominated him. She always insulted him in this way or that. The respondent was too stubborn to her demands. If sometimes due to lack of money or some other reason, the petitioner did not fulfill any demand of respondent, she got furious, used to throw households, TV remote, shouting in abusive language and threatened to kill the petitioner. But the petitioner left all his fate upto the almighty God thinking one day seeing growing children the respondent will prevail good senses and the atmosphere of the house will be harmonious, but all in vein due to the unnecessary intervention of the parents and sisters of the respondent, as they always used to instigate the respondent against the middle class cultur