IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of cruelty in the context of marital relationships, including the impact of mental cruelty, adultery, and false allegations on the irreversibility of the matrimonial bond.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 01.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court in HMA No. 1008/2011 (Old No. 743/2009) whereby respondent's petition under the provisions of Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved by awarding a decree of divorce.

2. The parties to the present petition got engaged on 28.11.2003 and entered into the bonds of marriage on 28.11.2005, adhering to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On this significant day, the appellant's sister, Urmila, and the real brother of the respondent, namely, Prem Prakash, also married. Their marriage, orchestrated by the Maternal Uncle (Mama) of the respondent and the parents of the appellant, endured for more than two and a half years without the blessing of children.

3. The appellant in the present appeal has averred that respondent started mistreating her almost immediately after marriage, employing foul language, frequent screaming and occasional physical abuse even on trivial matters. The appellant has alleged that the respondent subjected her to humiliation at the instigation of her mother-in-law. The appellant has averred that since she hailed from a financially disadvantaged background and fearing that her parents would be unable to provide support chose silence in the face of the sustained abuse and with the hope that the situation might improve.

4. The appellant has alleged that the respondent cruelly taunted her about her alleged infertility, consistently rejected her pleas to undergo a medical examination and despite her medical fitness to bear children, he remained obstinate.

5. The peak of cruelty occurred on 02.06.2008 when the respondent and his family, without provocation, violently assaulted and beat the appellant. To her utter shock, the respondent prohibited her from seeking medical attention for the severe injuries sustained.

6. The gravity of the situation unfolded on 03.06.2008 when the appellant's mother discovered her plight and she wanted to visit her but the respondent obstructed her mother, prompting the intervention of law enforcement. However, the respondent continued physically assaulting the appellant until the police arrived and with the police assistance, she was eventually taken to Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Centre at AIIMS for urgent medical treatment. Driven by concern for her well-being and left with no alternative, the appellant lodged a police complaint on 03.06.2008 and sought assistance from the Crime Against Women (CAW) cell on 05.06.2008.

7. On 17.07.2008, a Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate (SEM) counselled both the parties, the appellant and the respondent, advising them to coexist peacefully. Despite appellant's readiness to return to her matrimonial home, the Respondent, in a shocking turn of events, abandoned her at the office of the SEM in Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Notably, the Appellant had to seek police intervention to regain entry into her matrimonial home. Post this incident at the SEM's office, the respondent initiated a scheme to rid himself of the appellant. The appellant, having raised her voice against the abuse and approached the authorities, became a target of the respondent's ego-driven plot.

8. The narrative of cruelty took another turn on 17.04.2009. While the appellant was at her paternal uncle's house to attend a family event, the respondent, along with his parents and other family members, locked their house and vacated the premises. Upon her return, appellant found her house deserted, with all her in-laws, including the respondent, who went missing. This strategic move was aimed at projecting that the family had been compelled to abandon their home due to the appellant and her sister (married to the respondent's younger brother). With no other refuge, the appellant sough