IMPORTANT POINT
Reckless, defamatory, and humiliating allegations by one spouse constitute extreme cruelty, warranting divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - Any successful marriage is built on mutual respect and faith. If either is compromised beyond a level, the end of the relationship is inevitable as no relationship can stand on half-truth, half-lies, half-respect and half-faith.

1. An Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/wife against the Judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide which divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty, in the petition filed by the respondent/husband under 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as "HMA").

2. Briefly stated, the parties got married on 28.02.2000 and one son, Rudraksha, was born from their wedlock on 27.04.2004. The respondent/husband has asserted that during the pre-nuptial negotiations it was falsely projected that the appellant/wife is an MBA. However, after the marriage, he came across the educational documents of the appellant and could not find any MBA Certificate. He also found that most of the certificates were in different names and on inquiry from the appellant she stated that her father used to write her name differently in the educational records anything to make the so called DATA look "colorful". She further admitted that she was not an MBA graduate but was advised to claim so in her matrimonial home.

3. The respondent asserted that he had an excellent schooling and had more than a "literate tag" and the intellectual level of both the parties could not match since the very inception. The appellant being aware of her handicap, joined English Speaking Schools and similar courses for improvement of her speaking skills in the English language. She also joined Priya Warrick Finishing School in the month of May, 2001. The respondent claimed that he spent lot of money in getting her admitted to various English Speaking Schools and Finishing Schools, but to his shock and surprise the appellant did not attend any of these programs for more than 2-3 days, resulting in wasteful expenditure and financial strain.

4. The respondent had further claimed that the father of the appellant used to interfere in his professional work and often insisted that she should come to meet the father or his elder brother. He also insisted that the respondent/husband should have a personal account to meet the situation in bad time and for that he may even steal the money from the joint business and save it in a separate account. The respondent asserted that all his requests to the appellant/wife to refrain from creating problem for the family at the instigation of her parents, did not yield any result. When the respondent displayed his disinclination to follow his advice, he was pressurized by the appellant to follow the advice of her father. It was claimed that he was harassed by the respondent at the instance of her father on one pretext or the other including fighting with him and objecting to his travel for business purpose, meeting with friends and talking to his friends and lady colleagues.

5. It was further alleged that the appellant was of a suspecting nature, which is evident from the fact that when they went out to a restaurant, Park Royal, in October 2001 and when the appellant/wife saw the respondent/husband looking at a painting, she suspected him of looking at other women standing below the painting and violently reacted by spilling the food and creating a ruckus. She would frequently pick up fights, suspecting that the respondent was having interest in the other women and thereby, caused embarrassment for him in the restaurants and public spaces.

6. The respondent further alleged that the appellant was in a habit of bad mouthing him. She would speak about her household affairs and discussed her personal life with outsiders and would tell that the respondent's mother beats her; the respondent had extramarital affair; his family had taken dowry; he