Non-cohabitation and public humiliation can establish mental cruelty, warranting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Order

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant (for short ‘husband’) against the respondent (for short ‘wife’) under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act , 1984 challenging the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by Family Court, Bharatpur (Raj.) whereby the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (for short ‘Act of 1955’) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the record are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.12.2007 at Nadiyad, District Khera (Gujarat) and the parties has no child out of their wedlock. Both husband and wife are doctor by profession. The husband filed a petition before the Family Court seeking divorce from the wife stating therein that after marriage wife lived with the husband only about for two to three months during their two years of matrimonial period. The husband further stated in the petition that wife is in Government Service and working in the State of Gujarat. At the time of filing of the divorce petition her salary was Rs.60,000/- per month whereas the husband was working in rural area and his salary was less than Rs.20,000/- per month. The husband further stated in the petition that he was pressurized by his wife to come and live with her in the State of Gujarat, as there are more avenues in their profession, even in the Government job where the salary is much higher. The husband further stated that the wife threatened him on various occasions for which he has also lodged complaint against the wife at Police Station, Bharatpur. The wife is living separately since the year2009. He further stated in the petition that there is no possibility of their reunion and prayed for granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. The wife replied to the said application/petition and stated that she is ready to live with the husband and she never threatened him. She further stated in her reply that husband does not want to respect their matrimonial relationship and prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition.

4. Husband submitted his own evidence as AW-1- Veerbhan Singh & AW-2 Chhatarbhan Singh and also submitted the documents marked as Ex.1 to Ex.10. Wife submitted her own evidence as NAW-1- Sonal Talpada, NAW-2-Manharbhai & NAW-3- Jaishri Bahin and also submitted the documents marked as NA-1 to NA-6.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court framed as many as two issues which are as under-

6. Learned counsel for the husband submitted that the husband in his affidavit stated that on various occasions, the wife had not allowed him to intercourse with her, which amounts to cruelty. Husband further stated in his evidence that the wife has threatened him on telephone to commit suicide and also threatened him at his house with her family members for which the husband has also lodged a criminal complaint against the wife at Police Station, Bharatpur. Counsel for the husband further submitted that wife has insulted him in front of his family members and friends.

7. Learned counsel for the husband in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli 2006 4 SCC 558 decided on 21.03.2006, where in para No.84, 85, 86 & 87 it has been held as under:-

“84. Even at this stage, the respondent does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again.

85. The High Court ought to have appreciated that t