The court emphasized that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with specific evidence, and general claims are insufficient for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.Snehalatha, J.

In this appeal, the appellant/husband calls in question the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Ettumanoor which dismissed his petition seeking divorce filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. The parties shall be referred to as petitioner and respondent as referred to in the Original Petition.

3. The averments in the petition in brief are as under. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised on 4.2.2005 as per the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. During the period of marriage, the petitioner was employed at Qatar. As it was not possible for him to get a family VISA, he was not in a position to take the respondent also to Qatar. But the respondent/wife was unhappy about petitioner’s inability to take her to Qatar and used to quarrel with the petitioner on that ground by alleging that she was misguided by the petitioner and his family to believe that she would be taken to his workplace in Qatar on family VISA. After the marriage, the respondent was not ready to stay at the house of the petitioner along with his parents. Whenever she visited the matrimonial home, she used to pick up quarrels with the relatives of the petitioner. When the petitioner came on leave, he used to stay with the respondent at her house, but she used to neglect him and used to pick up quarrels with him. She even refused to have sexual relationship with him. For the past five years, the respondent is residing separately and in spite of repeated requests, she has not cared to come and reside with the petitioner and thus there is physical and mental cruelty and therefore, petitioner seeks divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

4. The respondent filed objection refuting the allegations made in the petition. After the marriage, the respondent was residing in the Taravad house of the petitioner along with his parents and she was taking care of his parents. Petitioner was not prepared to take the respondent to his workplace even on a visiting VISA. In the wedlock, no children were born to them, and the petitioner was not even willing to consult a doctor. The respondent was always willing to have cohabitation with the petitioner and to continue the marital life. According to the respondent, the allegations regarding cruelty and desertion are baseless and without bonafides and hence she sought for dismissal of the original petition.

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1 and documents marked as Ext.A1, A2 and Exts.B1 to B6 series.

6. After trial, the learned Family Court dismissed the petition with a finding that the petitioner failed to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion as alleged by him.

7. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment and decree, dismissing the petition for divorce needs any interference by this Court.

8. At first, let us see whether the petitioner has made out a case of desertion so as to grant divorce on that ground.

9. According to the petitioner, his wife has deserted him and is residing separately at her parental house avoiding his company.

10. Admittedly the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 04.02.2005. The version of the petitioner/husband, who was examined as PW1 is that after the marriage, the respondent/wife used to make quarrel with him by ridiculing him, by saying that he had studied only up to 10th standard and also picked up quarrels with him for not taking her to Qatar, where he was employed. His further version is that, the respondent was not ready to look after his aged parents and she was not willing to stay with them. He has also stated in his evidence that the respondent refused to have sex with him. His further version is that the respondent is residing with her parents and thus deserted him for the past more than five years without any valid reasons and in spite of his repeated requests, she is not willing to come and reside with him.

11. Per contra, the respondent who was examined