The main legal point established is that the evidence of a breakdown in the matrimonial relationship can justify the dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellant-husband is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in M.T.S. No. 209 of 2005, whereby, the suit for dissolution of marriage between the parties, by a decree of divorce, brought by him in the Court below on the ground of cruelty, has been dismissed on contest.

3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The marriage between the parties had taken place on 17.04.2003 at Ranchi, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is the case of the appellant-husband that soon after the marriage they went for honeymoon to Puri, in a scheduled programme for six days, but due to short temper and arrogant behaviour of the respondent-wife, they had to cut short the programme and return back only after four days. It is alleged that the behaviour of the respondent-wife towards the appellant-husband and his relatives was irresponsible and even on slightest irritation she used to lose her temper and used to abuse the appellant and his relatives. It is also alleged that the respondent-wife pressurised the husband to transfer the house in her name and she left her matrimonial home on 6.5.2004. The husband went to meet her at her parents' place on 24.08.2004, when he was asked to live as Gharjamai, which was not acceptable to him. After persuasions she came back on 30.08.2004 to her matrimonial home, but her parents took her back on 05.01.2005. She again returned back on the occasion of Holi, and ultimately on 14.08.2005 the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home with bag and baggage, including her Stridhan and jewellery. There is also an allegation of demand of Rs.3,00,000/- by the respondent-wife on failure of which it is alleged that threats were given to falsely implicate in criminal case. It is also alleged that the respondent and her mother had gone to the house of the appellant-husband for the aforesaid demand and they entered the house of the appellant and committed the theft of Rs.1100/- kept in the husband's dressing table and Rs.800/-from the appellant's father's table as also the wrist watch of the appellant. With these allegation the matrimonial suit was filed in the Court below under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. Upon notice, the respondent-wife appeared in the Court below and filed her written statement in which the facts of marriage and going on honeymoon trip to Puri were admitted. All other allegations in the petition filed by the husband were denied. According to the case of the respondent-wife, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of Rs.50,000/- by the husband and his family members and when the demand could not be met, she was kicked out of the matrimonial home. She has stated that she never did any wrong to the applicant-husband or his family members.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Court below, including the issue relating to cruelty. The impugned Judgement shows that four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner-appellant in the Court below including himself. The other three witnesses were his friends. It appears that no family member of the petitioner-appellant was examined by him. On the other hand four witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent also, including the respondent herself and her father, who were examined as D.Ws. 1 and 3 respectively.

6. In his evidence, the petitioner-appellant who was examined as A.W.-1, stated that soon after marriage they went to Puri for honeymoon, but due to cruel behaviour of the respondent the trip was cut short and they had to return back early. On 06.05.2004, the brother of the respondent came and took her to his home. She used to leave the matrimonial home without permission of the petitioner and family members and always used filthy and insulting language towards the petitioner and his family members even