IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations that tarnish the character of a spouse and cause mental pain and suffering amount to mental cruelty, justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Delhi in (HMA OLDNO.325/2016 AND NEW NO.1353/2018), whereby his petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from respondent-wife, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnised on 06.05.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and a son was born out of the said wedlock on 01.01.2023.

3. The appellant in the present appeal has alleged that his marriage has been strained right from its inception due to respondent's indifference/disrespect towards him and his family. He alleged that the respondent was of quarrelsome nature and was not cooperative, as she neither participated in the day-to-day chores nor contributed financially to the house-hold expenses despite being employed. He claims that the respondent often acted as per her whims and fancies and used to spend more time at her maternal home. It is evident from the fact that out of a total of four years and 10 months of their marriage, they had hardly spent a year and a half together, which shows her absolute disregard for their matrimonial relationship.

4. It is asserted by the appellant that their marital bond further deteriorated after the birth of their son due to respondents' extreme possessiveness towards their child and her recurring visits to her maternal house. He further claims that the respondent would often leave their son at her parents' house while at work as she was apprehensive of leaving him alone with his parents, depriving him and his parents the company of their son. He has alleged that even the first birthday of their son was celebrated at her maternal home, in his absence, robbing him of the joys of parenthood.

5. As per the appellant, the respondent had gone to her matrimonial home with their son on 15.06.2013 and his every request to bring them back, was adamantly refused. It is asserted that his attempts to reach out to her on 30.06.2013 at her workplace too met with aggression where she smashed his phone in a fit of rage. He further claims that instead of resolving the conflict, the respondent made visits to his relatives with mock allegations in order to tarnish his reputation and ostracize his family from their relatives, thereby, causing great mental agony to him and his family.

6. After multiple failed attempts to bring her back to the matrimonial home and reconciliation, the appellant filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 bearing (HMA NO. 1023/2013 (later numbered as 1670/14) on 08.10.2013. The respondent in her written statement dated 06.02.2014 showed her willingness to join company of appellant at her matrimonial home, following which both parties were referred for counselling.

7. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent remained disinclined to any proposition made during the counselling and subsequently, she went on to contest the said petition. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the respondent reached out to him on 24.04.2014 at his work place showing remorse and requesting to resume their conjugal relationship, to which he agreed on the condition of peaceful co-existence at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent came back to her matrimonial home to join company of the appellant but did not bring their son to the matrimonial home, whom she had left at her parents' house. The appellant claims to have made repeated requests to bring the child back to home and ultimately, at his insistence, after 11 days she hesitantly agreed to bring the child back to their home.

8. The appellant claims that on 05.05.2014 he along with his wife and parents, went to respondent's parents home to bring back the son where his father-in-law i.e. father of respondent was not