Unfounded serious allegations, such as forced abortion, made by one spouse against the other, without any evidence, constitute acts of cruelty as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and can lead to the dissolution of marriage.

JUDGMENT

S. Saikia, J. - Heard Ms. A Neog, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant wife being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.9.2016 passed in Title Suit (M) Case No.114/2014 filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur whereby the petition seeking divorce by the respondent husband was allowed.

3. The husband as the petitioner filed the title suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the appellant wife. The short case projected by the husband was that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 18.11.2010 in the Satsang Mandir, near Polofield, Tezpur, Sonitpur, according to Hindu Religious rites. The respondent husband and the appellant wife thereafter started living together as husband and wife in the matrimonial house situated at Ward No.4, Rangapara. The respondent/husband owned a small jewellery shop situated in Rangapara town from which he earned his livelihood. The appellant wife and the respondent husband were followers of Shri Shri Anukul Thakur and used to visit frequently the Ashram at Deoghar at Jharkhand. The case projected by the respondent husband is that the appellant wife insisted on visiting the Ashram at Deoghar several times in a year and consequently, the husband had to spend about Rs.1,60,000/- towards those visits, within a year and half after the marriage. The further case of the husband is that the appellant wife and her elder brother requested the respondent husband to lend an amount of Rs.2 lakhs with a promise to return it after 15 days. The husband managed to arrange the said amount by borrowing it from his well wishers and handed over the money to the elder brother of the appellant wife. However, instead of returning the loan amount, the brother of the appellant wife, i.e. brother-in-law instigated the appellant wife against the husband because he had requested for returning the borrowed amount. When the brother-in-law failed to return the money, the respondent husband had to sell out a plot of his hereditary land situated at Bardhaman, West Bengal for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for repaying the amount he had borrowed as loan from his well wishers. However, the wife made a hue and cry and managed to gather people around and alleged that the respondent husband was not known to her and that he had robbed her of her money. Having no alternative, the respondent husband had to hand over the entire amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the appellant wife. Thereafter she proceeded towards her parental home situated in Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam. It is the case of the respondent husband that the appellant wife of her own volition left the matrimonial home and started living separately in a rented house at Rangapara since the month of October, 2012. Although the husband and his family members tried to bring back the appellant wife to the matrimonial home, she refused to come. Consequently, the respondent husband was deprived of his conjugal rights as the appellant wife had deserted the husband for no fault of him and without any reasonable cause.

4. The appellant wife contested the suit by filing her written statement and denied the allegations made against her by the respondent husband. The appellant wife in her written statement projected the case of cruelty by the husband and his family members as well as desertion by the husband, and therefore she contended that the husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for. The appellant wife contended that she was physically assaulted by the husband and there was consistent demand that the appellant wife procure money from her father, which she refused. The appellant wife also contended that on 6.5.2011, the respondent husband took her to Bhalukpung and forcibly obtained her signatures on a few blank papers. It is also contended by the appellant that after she became pregnant in