IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that long separation, false allegations, and criminal trials can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - The present Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA, 1955") has been filed on behalf of the appellant/husband against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.05.2009 whereby the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated that parties got married according to Hindu customs and rites on 14.10.1999 and one son was born from their wedlock on 28.12.2000.

3. The appellant/husband had asserted in his Divorce Petition that after the marriage, he and his family member gave due regard, respect, love and affection to the respondent/wife despite which she did not reciprocate the same sentiments towards him and his family members. Immediately after the marriage on 16.10.1999, the respondent started inquiring about the assets and business of the family of the appellant which caused a mental alarm in his mind. He assured her that he would take care of all the basic needs, but she remained adamant. It is further asserted that the respondent had asked for a partition and share in the business of the father of the appellant on 01.03.2000 and on his refusal she had threatened to implicate him and his family members in false cases.

4. It was further alleged that the respondent failed to discharge the regular household work, so much so, that many a times he had to go to his office without food. The respondent even refused to take care of him when he was sick and told him that she did not care whether he lived or died. She had a habit of sleeping for long hours.

5. The appellant also claimed that there was a constant parental interference of the respondent/wife and she would tell everything that transpired in the matrimonial home to her parents, who in turn would confront him with the incidents. When the appellant asked the respondent to reduce the interference of her parents in their matrimonial life, she again misbehaved and extended threats to the appellant. She would frequently go to her parental home without informing while he went to his office. On her asking, her parents used to misbehave with the parents of the appellant.

6. The appellant had further claimed that on 21.06.2000 since he had a heavy schedule in his office, he left the respondent at her parental home. In the evening the respondent called him to pick her up from her parental house, but when he expressed his inability to take her back after returning from the office at 8 P.M., the father and maternal uncle of respondent came to their matrimonial home and misbehaved with the parents.

7. The appellant asserted that the respondent demanded a separate accommodation from the parents and when he refused, she misbehaved with him. On 29.08.2001, the respondent called the Police after he had left for his office and the parents and maternal uncle of the respondent in collusion with the Police arranged for the arrest of him and his parents. The respondent also made a false complaint against them. He was compelled by the Police to sign some blank papers and to take the respondent to a separate accommodation. They immediately shifted with the grandparents of the appellant at Kirti Nagar, Delhi from 30.08.2001. Thereafter, on 19.09.2001 they shifted to a rented accommodation in Janakpuri. On 05.10.2001 the respondent along with her parents and uncle came to his office and started quarrelling with him as to why he was not residing in the parental home.

8. It was further alleged that on 10.11.2001 when the parents of the appellant returned back home from Haridwar and tried to open the lock of their house, they found that the lock had been changed. They broke open the lock and on going inside, they found that their house had been completely ransacked and their valuable articles along with the jewellery of the mother, had been taken away. After sometime, respondent along with her father came to their house and admitted tha