IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to prove allegations of cruelty in divorce cases, and the impact of prolonged litigation on the marital relationship.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Southwest District, Dwarka, New Delhi in HMA No. 1417/2017.

2. The learned Family Court vide impugned judgment has dealt with two petitions. One, preferred by the appellant-husband under Section 13-1(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA No. 1417/2017) seeking divorce from husband wife and second, petition preferred by the respondent-wife under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights(HMA No. 1416/2017). The learned Family Court vide order dated 20.04.2019 directed that these petitions shall be tried together and evidence led in HMA No. 1417/2017 shall be considered in both the petitions, being the lead case.

3. Relevantly, the learned Family Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.12.2021, has dismissed the petition seeking divorce preferred by the appellant-husband and has also dismissed the petition preferred by the respondent-wife seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. It is against the dismissal of petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.01.2011 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at New Delhi and a male child was born out of this wedlock on 26.09.2011. The parties have been living separately since 06.09.2011.

5. The appellant-husband in his petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act averred before the learned Family Court that soon after their marriage, the respondent showed her discomfort and in their short span of living together, he had endured severe mental torture and anguish from the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife allegedly conveyed to the petitioner- husband that the marriage was coerced upon her by her parents, and she displayed a lack of interest in the marital bond. Following their marriage, he observed the respondent's disloyalty and frequent visits to her parents' house.

6. The appellant-husband asserted in his appeal that he had been subjected to grave mental torture and agony by the respondent-wife. He claimed that she had threatened him with a kitchen knife in March, 2011 indicating her intent to harm him if he refused to allow her to visit to her parent's house. The respondent-wife neglected her marital responsibilities and insisted on extravagant demands, like a big LCD TV, car, mobile phone, laptop, and similar items, surpassing the appellant -husband's financial means.

7. The appellant further asserted that on 12.04.2011, the respondent inadvertently sent a message containing vulgar and unacceptable language about his parents, wherein she wrote, "Anu went to Preet Vihar with the old man to buy a scooter. The greedy old man isn't giving us a TV or a car, and I want an expensive and latest scooter for myself", which caused great mental agony to him. He immediately contacted the respondent's parents and informed her father about the incident and also expressed concern over the respondent's regular demands for items beyond his financial means, such as a big LCD, cash, mobile phone, and laptop. The respondent's brother, who was present with her parents, verbally abused him and his parents, even making threats of violence. This distressing message further strained their relationship. Despite his attempts to reconcile, threats and confrontational behavior from the respondent's family persisted.

8. The appellant further averred that on 23.05.2011, respondent verbally abused his parents, causing his mother to become unconscious and be hospitalized while he was at his sister's place to board the flight to Ahmadabad, where he was working. But he had to cancel his plans and return to his parent's house. He could eventually leave for Ahmadabad on May 25, 2011.

9. The appellant alleged that r