The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of mental cruelty, unsubstantiated allegations, and long-term separation as grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. The appellant husband had filed the present appeal against the judgment seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1956') has been dismissed, vide Order dated 14.02.2019 of learned Principal Judge, Family Court.

2. The petitioner/appellant (petitioner in the divorce petition hereinafter referred to as `appellant') and the respondent wife got married according to Hindu Customs and Rites on 15.02.2002 and two children namely Miss Nisha and one boy Rohan were born from the said wedlock on 23.11.2003 and 16.07.2006 respectively. The appellant husband had asserted in his petition that soon after the marriage, the respondent did not behave properly; fought routinely and abused all the family members by addressing them as `Dogs' and she also addressed all the women, his mother and other ladies in the family as `Bitches'. She went to her parental home after a month of the marriage and returned after a month and started making a claim for separate residential accommodation. She again went to her parental home with her brother on 02.08.2002 and came back only after much persuasion by the appellant and his parents.

3. The appellant has further narrated that from time to time, the respondent used to leave the matrimonial home but was brought back with much cajoling and convincing. The appellant had further claimed that when he had gone to the parental home of the respondent on 15.09.2002 along with his friend, they both were ill treated and humiliated. The appellant has further claimed that he and his friend Bablu on the invitation of Sh. Mahavir, brother of the respondent had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of Urmila, elder sister of the respondent but in the marriage function, he and his friend were not only neglected but were ill treated by the respondent and her family members. They were told that they had come as uninvited guests and were asked to leave immediately.

4. It was claimed that the daughter Nisha was born on 23.11.2003 in the parental home but he was not informed about the birth said daughter. He came to know about the birth on 02.12.2003 when he made telephonic call to the house of the respondent which was attended by the younger sister of the respondent namely Rama, who threatened him not to visit or else he would be beaten up. The appellant and his family members had a meeting with the family members of the respondent and the responsible persons of the village wherein both the parties reconciled the differences and the respondent joined matrimonial home. Things were peaceful for about two months but in July 2005, when he was not at home, the police was called to the house to enquire if there had been any fight or quarrel and the respondent wife made a false allegation of a quarrel with the appellant. On 22.07.2005, he was called to PS Sarojini Nagar where he was surprised to find the parents of the respondent present and in their presence the respondent stated that she was not willing to reside with the appellant. The matter was resolved on the promise by the father of the appellant that he would provide money and a shop to enable the appellant to setup his new business.

5. The appellant claimed that on one occasion, the respondent went to the extent of making false allegation of rape against the father-in-law. Upset with the conduct of the appellant and respondent, the father issued a disclaimer Notice in the newspaper `Statesman', disowning the appellant and expelling him from all his properties.

6. The appellant claimed that the respondent did not allow him to run the shop properly and despite having been given a separate accommodation her behavior did not change and she started calling her friends and relatives to their separate accommodation.

7. The appellant had further claimed that there were regular fights and proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were i