The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific acts of cruelty to be proven in matrimonial cases, and the need for the petitioner to prove desertion as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This appeal is filed by the husband, who has been denied a decree of divorce by the learned Court below.

2. The appellant/petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short ''Act'') against the respondent on the allegation that the marriage was solemnized on 19.1.2001 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter was born. It was averred by the petitioner that after the marriage, the conduct of the respondent was cruel towards him and his family members and she otherwise had deserted him without any reasonable cause and had left the matrimonial home. The petitioner elaborated the act of cruelty by stating that the respondent used to threaten him and his family members that she would implicate them in a criminal case and once she had even consumed poisonous substance. All these acts, according to the petitioner had raised a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be injurious and harmful to live with the respondent. Not only this, the respondent had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and his parents under Section 498-A IPC, wherein the petitioner was taken into custody and remained as such for more than a fortnight. Lastly, it was averred that the respondent without any reasonable and plausible cause had deserted the petitioner on 3.2.2003.

3. On notice, the respondent contested the petition by filing reply wherein the factual position regarding marriage, its consummation and birth of daughter were not disputed. However, the other facts as mentioned in the petition were emphatically denied and it was averred that it was the petitioner as well as his other family members, who had compelled and forced her to consume poisonous substance. However, she was saved by the doctor at Zonal Hospital, Kullu. She further averred that no complaint was lodged by her against the family members with the pious hope that good sense will be prevailed upon them and they may change their behaviour towards the respondent. She admitted that she lodged FIR against the petitioner and her parents, but the same was lodged on the basis of facts. The respondent asserted that she had been forced to leave the house of the petitioner on 9.3.2003 when the petitioner gave her severe beatings.

4. The petitioner filed the rejoinder wherein the contents of the reply were denied and those of the petition were reiterated.

5. On 4.12.2006, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn herself from the company of the petitioner without any justifiable cause and thereby deserted him as well as treated with mental cruelty, if so, to what effect? OPP

2. Relief.

6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition and aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the findings with regard to cruelty and desertion as recorded by the learned Court below are absolutely perverse and therefore, deserves to be set-aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully.

7. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner that there can be no better proof of cruelty when it has come on record that the respondent at one stage had consumed poisonous substance and had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and his parents under Section 498-A IPC wherein the petitioner was initially taken into custody, but lateron acquitted of the offence. In support of his submission, he would place strong reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane , (1975) AIR(Supreme Court) 1534;

(ii) Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi , (1988) AIR(Supreme Court) 121;

(iii) Surjeet Singh vs. Smt. Paramjit Kaur , (2009) AIR(UtR) 10;

(iv) Major Singh vs. Chhinderpal Kaur , (2011) 1 HinduLR 40.

(v) K. Srinivas vs. K.