The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of mental cruelty as defined by the Supreme Court in determining the dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dev Darshan Sud, J.

This appeal has been filed by the wife, who was respondent before the learned trial Court, against the judgment and decree of the learned Court dissolving the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce on the proved allegations u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent-husband instituted the petition out of which this appeal arises on the pleadings that the parties were married according to Hindu customs, rites and rituals on 30.4.2002. After solemnization of their marriage, the appellant resided with the respondent (husband, petitioner before the learned trial Court) as husband and wife at their matrimonial home for a period of more than one year. In between she was visiting her parents frequently. The respondent pleaded that there was no cohabitation between the parties and the marriage had not been consummated. She did not perform her matrimonial obligations, was not well versed in household chores and refused to attend her duties as a wife. She did not cook food and when asked to do so she acted oblivious of what had been asked from her. The respondent was compelled to arrange separate accommodation for himself and the appellant. Here again, she did not attend to the household affairs by saying that she wanted to clear her B.Ed, examination. On 5.5.2003 she left the matrimonial home accompanied by her father. She probably went to Gauhati (Assam). Her conduct towards the petitioner was indifferent, cruel and irresponsible. She did not permit the respondent to approach her to consummate the marriage. She often proclaimed that she would implicate the respondent and his family members in criminal cases. The respondent claimed that she had left the matrimonial home with the intention to put an end to the relationship permanently.

2. The appellant resisted the petition stating that she had cohabited with the respondent for three years, dutifully performed her matrimonial obligations. The marriage between the parties was consummated, but it was the members of the family of the respondent who were treating her with cruelty, often taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. It was the respondent who compelled her to reside separately in rented accommodation, for the reasons that he had created conditions which vitiated the atmosphere in the matrimonial home.

3. Learned trial Court, on the evidence on record, decreed the claim of the respondent herein. In order to arrive at its findings, the learned Court considered the statement of PW-1 Virender Katoch, petitioner, who has stated that after his marriage the respondent had resided with him for about one year, did not permit him to have sexual intercourse; she was not well versed in household work; she was indifferent to the petitioner and the members of his family, she would leave the house at her whim and pleasure went to Gauhati purportedly to study for her B.Ed, exams without taking his permission. She did not return to the matrimonial home even though she was requested to do so. The marriage between the parties had completely broken down. On 9.10.2003 the petitioner had issued notice Ex. PW-1/A attributing acts of cruelty to her.

4. PW-2 Shri Amar Singh, father of the respondent, stated that appellant was not well versed with the household work, could not prepare food for the family and had forced the petitioner to maintain a separate residence.

5. PW-3 Shri Charan Dass stated that the respondent had taken a house on rent near his house. The respondent and the appellant had stayed in his house for sometime. She was unable to perform any household chores, duties and in these circumstances it was the respondent himself who was performing these jobs. She used to compel the respondent to take her to her parents' house.

6. As against this, the appellant has appeared as RW-1 stating that for about 15 days after the marriage she was treated well thereafter she was maltreated and dowry demands etc. were m