The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cruelty' in matrimonial cases under the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly in relation to mental cruelty and its impact on the entitlement to divorce.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The husband who lost Original Suit No. 267 of 2016 for divorce is the appellant before us, challenging the judgment dated 24th September 2019 and the decree dated 30th September 2019 prepared thereon.

2. Original Suit No. 267 of 2016 was instituted for a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage under sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Shilpa Devi on 27th February 2015 at the house of maternal uncle (Fufa) of Shilpa Devi at Bara Bazar, district-Purulia in the State of West Bengal. After the marriage Shilpa Devi came to her matrimonial home at Chas, Bokaro and after a brief stay there she left her matrimonial home on 12th June 2015. The appellant made several allegations against his wife who according to him on her own left his company on 12th June 2015 and did not come back thereafter to join him and discharge her matrimonial obligations. The appellant pleaded that his wife was a lady of poor intellect; she would not understand the responsibility of matrimony; she was not interested in discharging her matrimonial obligations and; she was not even interested in living in his company for enjoying the conjugal life. The appellant further pleaded that he took his wife to B.G.H., Bokaro for treatment of her mental illness and gave Rs.80,000/-to the maternal uncle (Fufa) of his wife Shankar Baral for better treatment of his wife. The respondent-wife contested the suit by filing a written statement controverting the allegations by her husband about her behaviour, causing cruelty and of not being interested to discharge her matrimonial obligations. She took a stand that on 12th June 2015 she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home and thereafter her husband did not take care to bring her back at Bokaro. She would further allege that she was compelled to lodge a criminal case vide Bara Bazar PS Case No. 1 of 2016 under sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as her husband and his family members were harassing her in connection to demand of dowry.

3. The following issues were framed by the Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for filing the suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent is suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent prior to solemnization of her marriage that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with the petitioner?

(iv) Whether the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent by filing a false case/alleging Demand of Dowry against the petitioner?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

4. The appellant produced five witnesses to establish that his wife suffered from mental illness and she refused to live in his company and filed a false criminal case which caused mental torture and agony amounting to cruelty. Shilpa Devi also produced five witnesses to resist the divorce petition filed by her husband. Except a copy of the First Information Report, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence whereas the wife laid in evidence her educational certificates disclosing that she is a Graduate.

5. The issue no.(iii) which can be read as “whether the respondent is suffering from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent prior to solemnization of her marriage that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with his wife” and; issue no.(iv) “whether the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent by filing a false case/alleging demand of dowry against the petitioner” were taken up together for determination and both were answered against the appellant.

6. Original Suit No. 267 of 2016 was dismissed on contest against which the husband has preferred the present First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

7. Under sect