IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of cruelty in matrimonial matters, considering the impact of modern culture and value systems, and evaluating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Delhi in HMA No.61514/2016 whereby his petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA') was dismissed.

2. The brief facts as narrated by the appellant in the present appeal are that the parties met each other through the sister of the respondent who was his classmate. The respondent was attracted towards appellant and proposed him to get married with her, however, since elder sisters of appellant were unmarried, the appellant held back and did not allow the relationship to develop, however, the respondent was ready to abandon her family and even threatened appellant of suicide. According to appellant, the respondent, between the years 1985 to 1990, regularly wrote letters to him and even visited him at Delhi along with her father. The appellant has claimed that he had completely denied the state of affairs and told the respondent that he was not interested in the marriage, however, due to his long standing relationship with respondent's family as a consequence of his friendship with the respondent's sister, the parties got married on 19.09.1990 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Patna, Bihar.

3. The respondent averred that his family was not interested in this marriage, however, a public wedding ceremony on 28.09.1990 at the Constitutional Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi was arranged by them. A child was born out of this wedlock on 06.09.1991.

4. According to appellant, respondent, who is a well-educated woman with professional experience, demonstrated resilience by vocalizing her wants and desires and advocating for their fulfilment. On 15.05.1991, respondent/wife and one distinguished and respected citizen of Bihar, a Senior Legislator and former Minister, got into a quarrel during the appellant/husband's birthday celebration. As a result, respondent/wife started hurling insults and threw crockery. Also, during Teej celebrations in August, 1991, the respondent flung her wedding ring and mangalsutra at the appellant/husband. In another incident, she threw a remote at the television, shattering the screen.

5. In the year 2000, the respondent's uncle and aunt visited from UK who offered to give them a job and a place to stay if the parties agreed to migrate to UK. The appellant flatly refused to this proposal, however, respondent was extremely keen and in order to pressurise the appellant to change his decision, she left the matrimonial home in April, 2000 with their minor son. The appellant further alleged that the respondent returned to matrimonial home only after he assured that he would seek posting or transfer in UK to ascertain whether they can settle or not.

6. The appellant claims to have applied for a posting in London in August/September, 2002 and was given four-year work permit from the Office of the British High Commission. The respondent also applied for two-year study leave and the parties shifted to UK in September, 2002. The appellant alleged that the respondent was keen to permanently settle, therefore, she started exploring avenues for obtaining permanent residency/immigration in UK by improving her English, legal advice from an NGO and taking up school job so as to qualify for permanent residency.

7. Realizing that her income might prevent her from being eligible for immigration or permanent citizenship, she sought legal help from SANGAM, an NGO, on January 2, 2003, with questions pertaining to: -

a. Legal assistance, divorce procedures, and, if necessary, a court order prohibiting harassment.

b. How long would it take her to find work? How soon may she claim maintenance from her husband in the interim?

c. Immigration - contingent on the holder of a work permit for four years.

8. After moving to London, the respondent looked for and got a full time job, which infuriated the appe