Unproven serious allegations, such as an illicit relationship, can constitute mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes. The petitioner must prove the allegations and address their impact on mental well-being.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Jain, J. Appellant-wife is aggrieved by judgment dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Court of Ld. Addl. District Judge-01 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby a petition seeking divorce filed by her husband (respondent herein) has been allowed and their marriage has been directed to be dissolved under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. For the sake of convenience, appellant herein shall be referred to as `wife' and respondent as `husband'.

2. Marriage between the parties was solemnized in Delhi on 02.05.1982 as per Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with three children and as on date, they all have already attained age of discretion. The Husband filed the divorce petition contending that disputes between them arose from the first day of the marriage itself. He alleged that the behaviour of his wife was very rough and she also used to claim that such marriage had been solemnized against her wishes as she had succumbed to the desire of her parents.

3. It was also averred by the husband that his wife left his company in 1989 though she kept on residing in the same house. She also filed false cases against him. She reported matter to Crime Against Women Cell which was, however, later withdrawn by her. She also filed a petition seeking maintenance and one civil suit seeking probate which indicated cruelty on her part as she was only interested in grabbing his house.

4. According to him, his wife was ill-natured and used to talk filthy. She was in the habit of calling police unnecessarily, particularly because her younger brother was in Delhi Police. The husband, who was a government servant, therefore, became mentally, physically and financially disturbed on account of her such cruel behaviour. Contending that such acts of cruelty had never been condoned by him in any manner whatsoever, he prayed that marriage between them be dissolved.

5. Generally, courts are faced with very elaborate, lengthy and bursting plaint in such type of matters. However, a bare glance of the petition filed by the husband indicates that it was a very brief petition, also shorn of vital details.

6. Petition was resisted by the wife and in her written statement, she took preliminary objection that her husband was guilty of suppression of material facts and rather he was the one who had deserted her. While denying all the averments made by her husband, she also claimed that they both had cordial relation till August 1991 when her husband developed illicit relationship with a woman named Sunita and started residing somewhere else. She made best efforts to settle the things and even requested him to mend his ways for the sake of their children but he did not give any heed to her request. Rather, he became so enraged that on 23.10.1991, he tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her. Such incident resulted in registration of FIR with Police Station: Welcome, which eventually was compromised. She, thus, prayed that the petition being devoid of any merit and was liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

7. Replication was filed reiterating the averments made in the petition and controverting the stand taken in her written statement. As regards his being in illicit relationship, he claimed in the replication that such allegation was wrong and defamatory and a concocted story had been churned out by his wife. He also denied that there was ever any attempt to kill her by pouring kerosene oil. On the contrary, he mentioned in his replication that a false case under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code had been got registered against him.

8. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, learned family court framed the following issues on 16.12.2005:

(i) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of marriage? OPP

(ii) Relief.

9. It will not be out of place to mention here that the learned family court also considered the application moved under Sect