IMPORTANT POINT
The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree necessary to establish it under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was a key legal principle discussed in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Court below”) has maintained the instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2020, passed by the learned Court below, in HMA Petition No. 352/19/17, with a prayer to set-aside the same by allowing the instant petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-Anish Thakur (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) filed a petition before the learned Court below under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) seeking dissolution of marriage from his wife Smt. Shiwani Jaswal (respondent herein) by a decree of divorce. The petitioner averred that he and the respondent solemnized marriage on 07.05.2015, according to Hindu rites and customs, but the respondent remained in the company of the petitioner for two months only. Out of their wed-lock, on 09.04.2016, a male child was born and the child is in the care and custody of the respondent since his birth. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondent was having friendship with a person. The petitioner found respondent on telephonic call with a person during the odd hours of the night. On being asked by the petitioner, the respondent divulged that she was unwilling to marry him and was willing to marry another person, namely, Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj. As per the petitioner, the respondent divulged to him that as Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj belonged to another caste so her parents objected to their marriage and she married the petitioner under the pressure of her parents. Despite previous relation of the respondent have ignored all these facts and has suggested the respondent to live a new life by keeping in view the dignity and honor of her husband and her in-laws. On 12.03.2016, on the demand of the respondent, the petitioner left her at her parental house and at that time the respondent was pregnant. The respondent gave birth to a male child at Sanjeevan Hospital Mandi, H.P., where all the arrangements were made by the petitioner and his family and the petitioner paid all the dues. After the delivery, the petitioner requested the respondent to come to her matrimonial house, however, the respondent and her mother assured the petitioner that after some time the petitioner would come to her matrimonial house. As per the petitioner, the respondent also assured him that ‘Gantrela’ and ‘Namkaran’ ceremonies of the new born baby would be performed in the matrimonial house. The respondent went to her parental house alongwith the child and for a night the petitioner also stayed with them. The petitioner further averred that he purchased clothes etc. for the new born baby and also gave some money to the respondent and on 11.04.2016 the petitioner came back to his house. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to contact the respondent on her as well as on the mobile of his mother-in-law, but his calls were not attended. Ultimately, when the petitioner failed to contact the respondent, he sent a text message to the respondent on 18.04.2016 conveying to be ready alongwith the child that he was coming to take them back. On 18.04.2014, around 11:00 a.m., the petitioner reached the parental house of the respondent and requested the respondent to accompany him alongwith the child so that ‘Gantrela’ and ‘Namkaran’ ceremonies of the new born baby could be performed on 22.04.2016. However, the respondent, at the instance of her parents, refused to join the company of the petitioner and also refused for the above ceremonies. As per the petitioner, due to the act and conduct of the respondent and her parents, the petitioner and his family members suffered humiliation and the name of the new born child had not been disclosed to him. The petitioner further averred that on 20.04.2016, he tried to contact the respondent telephonical