IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for substantiating allegations of cruelty and highlighted the inapplicability of the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' for dissolution of marriage under the statutory provision.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. - The present appeal has been filed assailing the judgement dated 22.12.2018 vide which the Ld. Judge, Family Court (West Delhi), Tis Hazari Court in HMA No. 93/16 has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short the 'Act'] seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. The Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.04.2014 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Daya Nand Model School, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. No child is born out of the said wedlock. The appellant/husband and the respondent/wife both are visually handicapped as they are unable to see since birth. The appellant is working at State Bank of India and the respondent is working as a lecturer.

3. Due to temperamental issues, certain disputes and differences arose between the parties on account of which they started living separately w.e.f. 28.06.2015 and thereafter the appellant-husband filed a Divorce Petition for dissolution of marriage against the respondent-wife before the Family Court on 15.01.2016 on the grounds of cruelty.

4. As per the appellant/husband, the instances of cruelty stated to have been committed by the respondent/wife are numerous, which are enumerated as follows - (i) the respondent never respected the appellant and left no opportunity to humiliate him, (ii) she forced the appellant to sever his relations with his family, (iii) she demanded the entire salary of the respondent for the household expenses, (iv) she would refuse to have physical relations with the appellant if he contacted his sisters or continued to be in contact with them, (v) she mistreated the appellant and did not even allow his family members to take fruits and vegetables on their own, and (vi) the respondent has a house in Delhi, where the parties shifted after their marriage but the respondent never considered the said house as the joint house of the parties but always insisted to refer it as her house only.

5. It has also been pleaded in the divorce petition that the respondent has refused to co-habit with the appellant as his wife and it has become impossible for him to continue his marriage with the respondent which has broken down irretrievably.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid divorce petition, the Family Court made an attempt to resolve the matter by referring it to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which mediation subsequently failed as the respondent did not come forward to give her consent for the divorce by mutual consent.

7. Thereafter, a written statement was filed by the respondent submitting that the appellant has himself committed cruelty towards the respondent and the petition filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as the appellant has concealed material facts and has made false allegations against the respondent.

8. Respondent made counter-allegations of cruelty stating that the petitioner was only interested in her money and property and he did not give her due respect. Even on the first night, the appellant had not stayed with the respondent. The entire marriage expenses were borne by the respondent and she was also meeting the household expenses while the appellant started contributing Rs.5,000/- after a few months of marriage and that too after great persuasion.

9. It is an admitted case of the parties that they have been living separately w.e.f. 28.06.2015, though the reason given by each party for staying separately, is different. The appellant's case is that feeling insulted he shifted to rented accommodation at village Kharkhari Nahar Delhi, on 28.06.2015. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent-wife is that petitioner left her new house on 28.06.2015 at the instigation of his mother.

10. The Family Court vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2018 dismissed the appellant's petition for divorce. The Family Court inter alia held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the specifi