The interpretation and application of Sections 13(1)(1-A) and 13(1)(1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in determining whether the conduct of a spouse constitutes cruelty or desertion as grounds for divorce.

1. - This miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgement and decree dated 05/11/2009 passed by Family Court number 1, Jaipur, whereby the learned family court granted a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 07/12/1996 at Kota as per Hindu ritual and customs. Out of the wedlock, one daughter, namely, Kaumudi was born on 19/08/1998 and the second daughter namely Pavitra was born on 15/08/2001.

3. The petition for divorce was filed by the respondent-husband wherein it was alleged that the appellant-wife was in Government service and more qualified because of which she was always proud and used to look down on him. Right from the very beginning, she was adamant about going back to her workplace and she neglected all her conjugal duties. On the dates mentioned in the divorce petition, the appellant-wife pestered her husband about going back to her workplace and on his refusal to allow her to do so; she said she would go back to her parents' house thereby neglecting all her household duties which a wife is expected to do. To make the matter worse, she would not even take care of her daughters and used to ill-treat the guests and relatives of the respondent. She would also verbally abuse him and put allegations against her husband and father-in law that they had illicit relations with their mother and daughter respectively. The respondent-husband also contends that she filed a false complaint under Section 498A of IPC against him and a number of other vexatious cases. The respondent-husband contended that this behaviour of the appellant amounted to mental cruelty. It is further alleged that from 02/12/2002, the appellant-wife deserted him and the two never cohabited since then. On 20/04/2005, a settlement between the parties was arrived at but despite that there was no improvement in her behaviour and she also committed breach of the terms thereof.

4. The appellant-wife, on the other hand denied all the allegations levelled against her. According to her, the respondent-husband has an inferiority complex. She always respected him and never went to work without informing him. Because of the constant mental and physical torture by her husband and in-laws, she was forced to file a complaint under Section 498 A of IPC, which is still pending in the Court. As regards the settlement, she contends that she was coerced and pressurised to enter into the same. She also contends that because of her work constraints, she is forced to leave her daughters in the care and custody of her in-laws but she never neglected them. Her husband under the influence of his parents tortures her. She also contends that they have been living in the same room and she never deserted him and they are still cohabiting. Further, her in-laws also incited her daughters against her.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Court;

1.Whether the non-applicant subjected the applicant to cruelty?

2.Whether the non-applicant deserted the applicant without probable and reasonable cause?

3.Relief?

6. To prove the aforementioned issues, the respondent-husband got himself examined as P.W.-1 and also examined P.W.-2,Krishna Murari. In rebuttal, the appellant-wife got herself examined as D.W.-1 and Shri Giri Raj Datt as D.W.-2. The Court decided both the issues in favour of the respondent-husband and consequently granted a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion in favour of the respondent-husband. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-wife that the Judge Family Court has not appreciated the evidence on the record at all. The grounds of cruelty and desertion were not proved by the respondent-husband with the evidence on the record. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife further submitted that while deciding issue No.