The main legal point established is that acts of mental cruelty, including attempts to poison or commit suicide, withholding physical relations, and making false allegations of illicit relationships, can be grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant Lata Kumari against the Judgment dated 28.01.2019 vide which the Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of `cruelty' filed by the respondent/husband, has been allowed.

2. Facts in brief, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.03.2009 at Dumka, Jharkhand as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. One daughter Ashima Mandal was born on 26.12.2010 from the said wedlock. The respondent herein (petitioner/husband in the Divorce Petition) claimed that he was subjected to various acts of `cruelty' which were as under:

(i) That the appellant herein (respondent/wife in the Divorce Petition) used to pick quarrel on trivial issues and always remained adamant on her unjustified acts. She used to leave the home at times for 15 days to 1 month without any reason and without the consent of the respondent herein.

(ii) The appellant/wife did not allow the respondent/husband for physical relations, sometimes for a span of 1 to 2 months.

(iii) The appellant tried to poison the respondent in the month of January 2016. She tried to jump from the balcony but was saved by the respondent on time. She also attempted to kill the parents of the respondent in the year 2012-2013 by giving poison but they were able to thwart the attempt of the appellant who was thereafter sent to her parental home. Parents of the appellant/wife were also informed about the incident but instead of counselling the appellant, they put the blame on the parents of the respondent/husband.

(iv) The appellant also levelled allegations that the respondent was having illicit relations with other woman.

(v) There has been no cohabitation since 29.03.2016 and they have been living separately since then.

3. The appellant was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Judge, Family Courts on 13.03.2018. Thereafter, she entered appearance with her counsel namely Sh. Kumar Shivam, Advocate. The parties were referred to counselling but it did not yield any result. The appellant thereafter moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings but the same was dismissed vide Order dated 16.01.2019, by observing that the sole ground given in the application was that she had been misguided by a lawyer at Dumka which was not accepted as any cogent explanation in view of the fact that the summons were duly served upon the father Sh. Umesh Pd. Sah of the appellant. The appellant had even put her appearance in the Court thereafter.

4. No written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant in the Divorce Petition to rebut the allegation made against her. The averments made in the Divorce Petition were duly proved by the respondent herein by way of affidavit of evidence Ex.PW-1/A. The marriage photograph and other documents relied upon by him were exhibited as Ex.CW-1/1 to CW-1/5.

5. The learned Judge, Family Court observed that that the acts as narrated by the respondent herein amounted to `mental cruelty' and granted the divorce vide the impugned Judgment dated 28.01.2019.

6. Aggrieved by the decree of divorce, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant (respondent in the Divorce Petition).

7. The main grounds agitated in the appeal are that the impugned judgment was against the Principles of Natural Justice as the appellant did not get the opportunity to participate in the proceedings and lead her evidence. Her application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was erroneously dismissed which took away her valuable right to bring the true facts on record. She being a lady living in far remote corner of Jharkhand, was not having enough financial capacity to contest the petition. It is asserted that the learned Judge, Family Courts erred in concluding that the service upon father of the appellant was a p