Cruelty in matrimonial cases requires specific instances to be pleaded and proven; vague allegations do not suffice to establish grounds for divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned District Judge (Family Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Court below”) has maintained the instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, against the order dated 09.09.2021, passed by the learned Court below, in HMA Petition No. 262- S/3 of 2019/16, with a prayer to set-aside the same by allowing the instant petition.

2(a). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner maintained a petition under Section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (for short “the Act”) seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent, who is his wife, by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. As per the petitioner, he solemnized marriage on 26.09.2014 with the respondent as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petitioner averred that after their marriage they lived together as husband and wife and cohabited with each other for about four and a half months, but on 15.02.2015 the respondent left her matrimonial house without any intimation. On 17.08.2015, out of their wedlock, a son-Master Mihir Sharma was born. The petitioner further averred that despite his repeated requests the respondent did not join his company.

2(b). As per the petitioner, he is the only son, his father died long back, he has two married sisters and his mother is suffering from disc problem. The petitioner is serving in police department and due to his work profile he has to remain outside. The petitioner also averred that for promotional course of Head Constable, he was deputed at Pandoh/Daroh on 27.02.2016 for about five and a half months. As per the petitioner, the respondent, after the marriage, was unwilling to live in her matrimonial house and also did not like to share responsibility of household chores with the mother of the petitioner, this germinated into trifles on many occasions. The respondent started misbehaving with the mother of the petitioner and also insisted to live separately, for which the petitioner refused. Ultimately, on 15.02.2015, without any intimation, the respondent left her matrimonial house and subsequently the petitioner, personally as well as through his relatives, tried to bring her back, but she refused.

2(c). On 17.08.2015 a son was born to them, but he was informed about this after about two weeks. The respondent named the son without consulting the petitioner and when the petitioner and his mother tried to visit the respondent to see the infant, she declined. The respondent also made a false complaint against the petitioner to Chairman Women Commission and in sequel thereto the petitioner had to go to the office Superintendent of Police, Shimla, where for the first time he saw his son. Ultimately, the matter was compromised, however, such a complaint was filed by the respondent only to malign the image of the petitioner, which amounts to cruelty. Lastly, the petitioner prayed that his petition be allowed and a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage be passed.

3(a). The respondent contested the petition by filing reply, wherein she raised preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and misrepresentation of facts etc. On merits, she admitted the marriage with the petitioner an d birth of the son. As per the respondent, the petitioner had wrongly claimed that she (respondent) left the company of the petitioner on 15.02.2015. The respondent further contended that on 25.12.2014 the petitioner asked her to go to her parents’ house and also that he was not interested to have a child out of their wedlock. The respondent also contended that at the time of their marriage she was working as Postman in the Postal Department and on 28.12.2014 the petitioner along with his mother and uncles S/Shri Sukh Ram and Rama Nand, came to the house of the respondent and complained that respondent did not w