The court ruled that mere allegations of cruelty and adultery without substantial evidence do not justify divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and improper delay in filing the suit is a valid ground for dismissal.

Judgment :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Mahendra Prasad to challenge the judgment and decree dated 19^th May 2012 passed in Civil Misc. (Divorce) Case No.67/2008 (23/2003) titled “Mahendra Prasad v. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi”. By this judgment, the suit for divorce filed by the appellant under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sujangarh (Churu).

2. In Civil Misc. (Divorce) Case No.67 of 2008, the appellant pleaded that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized about 35 years before instituting the suit for divorce. His marriage was solemnized following the rituals observed by the Hindus and, in particular, by observing Saptapadi. From the wedlock, one daughter Kiran and two sons, namely, Ram Ratan and Laxmi Narayan were born. The appellant further pleaded that he constructed a house at Sujangarh and lived there with his mother, brother and wife. About 3-4 years after the marriage, he got employment in the Army and he lived in the joint family whenever he came home on vacation. According to the appellant, his wife was quarrelsome from the beginning and she used to fight with his family members. Therefore, he purchased a piece of land and constructed a house for his wife to live there with the children. But there was no change in her behaviour and she used to quarrel with him, abused him and treated him with cruelty. The appellant further pleaded that his wife developed illicit relationship with his cousin Om Prakash who had deserted his wife and started living with the respondent as husband and wife. This fact was brought to his notice by his neighbours whenever he visited home on vacation. He tried to reason with the respondent but she, in turn, gave a false application on 16^th August 1999 to the District Collector at Churu for restraining him from visiting Sujangarh. Not only that, the respondent instituted a false case vide Criminal Case No.218/2000 and made allegation against him for committing the offence under section 498-A, 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and in that case he was sent to judicial custody. However, the criminal case was closed and Final Form was submitted by the police. The appellant made a specific reference of illicit relationship of the respondent with Om Prakash when he visited home in the midnight around 12:30 A.M. on 08^th September 1998 and found his wife indulged in sexual intercourse with Om Prakash. According to the appellant, his wife and Om Prakash started marpeet with him and threw him out of home. The appellant made allegation against the respondent that she grabbed his properties and Rs.4,00,000/- which was invested in Kisan Vikas Patra and Rs.64,800/- deposited in the post office. He made fruther allegations against Om Prakash and the respondent that they threatened him on 18^th January 2003 when he was returning from the Court appearance and the respondent told him that she was no longer in relationship with him and Om Prakash was everything for her.

3. In her written statement, the respondent denied the plaint allegations levelled against her by her husband and raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of the divorce suit on the ground of suppression of material facts. The respondent raised such objection in view of Order VII Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1984 which requires the applicant to furnish the details of previously instituted or pending petitions/applications. The respondent pleaded that she had filed Petition No.08/2001 titled “Smt. Parmeshwari v. Mahendra Prasad” under sections 9 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was pending consideration before the Court. She had filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that application was also pending in the Court. Taking the matter further on the point of maintainability of