IMPORTANT POINT
The conduct of parental alienation and refusal to reconcile by one spouse can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Howsoever abysmal the differences maybe between the spouses, but in no realm can the act of the aggrieved spouse of igniting animosity and hostility in the minor child in an attempt to use the child as a weapon to get even with their spouse, could be justifiable. Such vindictiveness aimed to erode a father-daughter relationship is not only an act of extreme cruelty to the father but also gross inhumanity to the child.

1. The appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with 28 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the Judgment dated 09.10.2018, vide which his petition under Section 13 (i) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the parties got married on 09.05.1998, according to the Hindu Rites and Customs at Arya Samaj Temple at Baroda, Gujarat. The marriage was consummated and two daughters were born from their wedlock on 25.03.1999 and 15.10.2004 respectively.

3. The petitioner/husband has asserted in his Divorce Petition that he was working in Indian Army at the time of marriage, while the respondent was a PHD in Management and was working as a lecturer and earning good salary. The temperamental differences inter se the parties grew and the respondent left the matrimonial home in May, 1999, without any justiciable cause. She made a complaint to his Commanding Officer and consequently, directions were passed for deduction of Maintenance Allowance from the salary of the petitioner, to be paid to the respondent directly, w.e.f. July, 1999.

4. Eventually, the respondent joined the matrimonial home in September, 1999, but continued to receive the maintenance from the Army Authorities. The appellant approached the Army Authorities to stop the deduction from his salary as the respondent had joined the matrimonial home, but the respondent had not disclosed this fact to the Authority, which caused immense pain and agony to the appellant.

5. The appellant further claimed that he suffered an injury in his leg and was admitted in the Army Hospital, Udhampur, from September, 2001, for six months, but the respondent did not take care and left him to the mercy of the hospital.

6. The respondent despite getting a handsome salary, never contributed to the household expenses and made derogatory remarks against the appellant for being less qualified than the respondent. She had immense inclination and affinity for her parental family and would frequently visit her parental home without informing the appellant.

7. On 29.01.2007, the respondent demanded separate residence from the mother of the appellant and when she refused, the respondent gave beatings to the old aged mother and threw her out of the house. The petitioner/appellant was compelled to set-up a rented accommodation in Paschim Vihar but because of the callous attitude of the respondent, the landlord asked him to vacate the premises. He made alternate arrangement of another rented accommodation at Vikas Puri, but the respondent refused to shift to the new accommodation or stay in the company of the appellant. The respondent preferred to reside in Paschim Vihar accommodation and did not permit the appellant to enter the premises.

8. Rather, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 18.10.2007, without any reasonable cause and thereby withdrew herself from the company of the petitioner. The repeated requests of the appellant did not yield any result. He, therefore, filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Act, for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. With great efforts of the appellant, the respondent consented to live with him w.e.f. 04.05.2009, consequent to their Settlement in December 2008. He withdrew his Petition under Section 9 of the Act and the parties started residing together.

9. However, the conduct of the respondent continued to be indifferent and she refused to establish