False allegations made during marital disputes can constitute mental cruelty, supporting grounds for divorce under relevant family law statutes.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Divorce petition dismissed by Family Court on grounds of cruelty - The Appellant husband alleged ongoing mental cruelty due to Respondent wife's accusations, false complaints, and long-term separation. The Family Court couldn't conclude sufficient proof of cruelty; however, crucial evidence indicated false complaints constituted mental cruelty. (Paras 40, 42, 30)

(B) Separation and Irretrievable Breakdown - The court specified that long periods of living apart do not automatically equal sufficient grounds for divorce; the Appellant needed to demonstrate actual cruelty. The wrong conclusion on cruelty denied a decree despite separation. (Paras 29, 31)

Facts of the case:
The couple married in 2004, separated in 2008, and despite living apart, various allegations were made by both sides. The Appellant filed for divorce claiming cruelty, while the Respondent contended domestic violence.

Findings of Court:
The Respondent's made false accusations were deemed as acts of mental cruelty by the Appellant, weight shifted toward the husband's claims.

Issues: Whether the Respondent's conduct caused mental cruelty and whether the length of separation justified a divorce.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment reaffirmed false allegations can constitute mental cruelty, and extended separation indicated marital bond damage.

Result: Appeal allowed; marriage dissolved on the grounds of cruelty.

Table of Content
1. factual background of marriage and separation (Para 1 , 2)
2. allegations and counter-allegations in marriage (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on false accusations and evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. conclusion on dissolution of marriage based on cruelty (Para 33)

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)--The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant (husband) against the Respondent (wife) under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2017 in HMA Case No. 1086/14, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi wherein the Principal Judge has dismissed the divorce Petition filed by the Appellant- husband.

2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as under:

a. The marriage between the Appellant-husband and the Respondent- wife was solemnized on 30.05.2004. There is one daughter from the wedlock born on 18.02.2006. The parties have been living separately since 28.03.2008.

b. At the time of marriage, the Appellant was working as a Chemistry Teacher in Karnal, and the Respondent was working in a private school in Tonk, Rajasthan as a Physical Education Teacher. As the place of work of both of the parties was at different places, both parties met once every two months depending on holidays, and by taking leave from work.

c. As per the case of the Appellant, the Respondent changed her job in 2005 and moved to Mayo Girls School, Ajmer as a Physical Education teacher. The Appellant continued with his job in Karnal. The Respondent resigned from her job shortly after the birth of the child, and joined the company of the Appellant at Karnal.

d. That the Respondent along with the child disappeared one day in August 2006 from Karnal, and were found in Ajmer the next day. Upon being brought back to Karnal, the Respondent expressed her desire to rejoin her job at Ajmer. However, when the school declined to offer the job to her, the Appellant persuaded her to stay with him in Karnal.

e. That after some time, the Respondent again expressed her desire to move to Ajmer. Thus, the Appellant put his job at stake, and applied for a job at various schools in Ajmer and ultimately succeeded in getting a job at Military School, Ajmer. It is alleged by him that once he succeeded in getting the job in Ajmer, the Respondent, instead, took a job in Delhi at Salwan Public School and moved herself and the minor child to Delhi and left the company of the Appellant. Five months later, the Respondent again changed her job and moved to Mody School at Lakshmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan.

f. The Appellant again decided to apply for a teaching job in the same school where the Respondent was working so he could stay with the Respondent and the child. Consequently, he applied and got a job at Modyi School, Sikar.

g. As per the Appellant, the entire effort of the Respondent-wife at Sikar, was to stay away from the Appellant and the Respondent would have her lunch alone, and spend Sundays with her friends at school etc. etc.

h. That the respondent -with the minor child, disappeared from the matrimonial home without any intimation to the Respondent from 28.03.2008 to 19.04.2008. On 19.04.2008, the Appellant and the Respondent's father lodged a missing person report at Sikar, Rajasthan.

i. That the Respondent was located in Bharatpur, Rajasthan by the police subsequently. Since 28.03.2008, the parties have not cohabitated together as husband and wife.

j. It is alleged that the Respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Sikar, Rajasthan on 30.06.2011. The same was dismissed on 27.08.2013.

k. It is also alleged that the Respondent resorted to filing a false case under section 498A/406/423/341/34 IPC in Jaipur on 05.12.2011 bearing FIR No. 168/2011. After thorough investigation, the police found no substance in her complaint. In fact, the police filed a complaint un