IMPORTANT POINT
Unsubstantiated allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence can amount to mental trauma and cruelty, supporting a finding of desertion and cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant/wife (respondent in the Divorce Petition) against the impugned Judgment dated 31.07.2018 of Principal Judge, Family Court, New Delhi granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in a petition filed by the respondent/husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA, 1955").

2. Briefly stated, the parties got married on 24.02.1995 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies against the wishes of their parents. Admittedly, the family of the respondent accepted their marriage, but the family of the appellant disillusioned by the marriage of the appellant against their wishes, disassociated themselves completely from the appellant and her in-laws. One son was born on 17.12.1995, from their marriage.

3. The respondent/husband had asserted in his Divorce Petition that the behavior and attitude of the appellant/wife was cordial for first few days of their marriage, but thereafter she turned hostile and would quarrel with the respondent on trivial issues. She refused to take interest in the household work or show any respect towards the respondent or his family members. She was in a habit of leaving the house without informing the respondent and his family members. The appellant also abused him for not having agreed to live separately.

4. The respondent has further submitted that since 1996 the appellant has been working in Taneja Dental Clinic which shifted to Greater Kailash, New Delhi and was earning about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. She would leave the house at 09:00 A.M and return late in the night at about 09:00/09:30 P.M. She neglected the child and it was he, along with his mother and sister-in-law, left to take care of the minor. The respondent requested the appellant time and again to leave the job and to take care of the son, but to no avail. Instead, the appellant left the matrimonial home in July, 2004 in a fit of anger and thereafter, despite his repeated sincere efforts she refused to return to the matrimonial home.

5. It was further asserted that the appellant not only threatened to implicate the respondent and his family members in false cases, but even resorted to filing a complaint before the CAW Cell, Nanakpura, in July, 2004, leveling false and frivolous allegations. However, she subsequently withdrew her complaint. The appellant had also filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein again frivolous allegations were made against him and his family members solely with an intent to extort money from him. Instead of returning, the appellant continued to cause mental stress to the respondent because of which he suffered a paralytic attack in the year 2007 and thereafter twice in September and December, 2010. He was, therefore, unable to attend his service regularly and remained absent from his service. Vide letter dated 08.09.2010 his Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and an amount of Rs.61,902/- per month is being deducted from his salary for not attending the office.

6. It is further submitted that on 02.08.2012, their son came to the house of the respondent on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan who informed the respondent of being ill-treated by the appellant/mother and that no proper education was being provided to him. The appellant also did not permit him to make a call to the respondent. On 16.08.2012, the appellant talked to the son on telephone, but he refused to return to his mother. Again, on 24.08.2012 the appellant threatened the child, the respondent and his family members. On 31.08.2012, she came to his residence and started quarreling and extending threats. The Police was called and she forcibly took away the son with her.

7. The respondent thus, asserted that he has been deprived of his conjugal relationship and there has been no co-habitation since July, 200