Cruelty in marriage can be established through long separation and misbehavior, justifying divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

ORDER :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife (hereinafter to be referred as “Wife”) against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Trial Court’), whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1955’)filed on behalf of the wife.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Trial Court stating therein that the marriage between the respondent- husband (hereinafter to be referred as ‘husband’) and wife was solemnized on 04.12.2007. It was further stated in the application by the wife that the behaviour of the husband and his family members was not good with her and they have demanded the dowry. It was further stated in the application that she left the husband’s house as her life was in danger and there is no matrimonial relationship with both of them and prayed for granting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. The husband filed reply to the said application and denied the allegations made by the wife. It is further stated in the reply that the wife has completed her B.Ed course and doing job as teacher in a school and prayed for dismissal of the said application on the basis of pleadings of the parties recorded before the learned Trial Court.

4. The wife in support of his case submitted her own evidence as AW-1. On the other side the husband has produced his own evidence as NAW-1.

5. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by the wife. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2005 passed by the learned Trial Court, the wife has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed two issues, which are as under:-

7. None present on behalf of the wife to argue the matter even in the second round.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband submits that the husband and wife both are living separately since 2008 and there is no chance to reunion after a delay of 16 years. Learned counsel further submits that the wife has lodged a false criminal case against her husband with regard to demand of dowry.

9. Heard learned counsel for the husband and perused the material available on record.

10. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at length & depth in catena of judgments and in a recent judgment delivered in the matter of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Smt. Kavita (Civil Appeal No.2012/2013) decided on 26.01.2023, wherein in Paras No.17 and 18, it has been has held as under:-

“17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:-

“ 46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.

Cruelty can be even unintentional:-

…The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill- treatment.”

This Court though did ultimately