ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant filed Title (Mat.) Suit No. 108 of 2015 which was renumbered as Original Suit No. 108 of 2015 (in short, divorce case), seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the respondent which was solemnized on 29th April 2013 at village Rajopur of Govindganj PS, within East Champaran district in the State of Bihar.

2. The divorce case has been dismissed by the judgment dated 25th January 2019 against which the appellant has preferred the present First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

3. The Family Court has held that the appellant inflicted cruelty upon his wife on non-fulfillment of the demand for a Scorpio car and ousted her from her matrimonial home on 20th July 2013. The Family Court has also taken note of the criminal case filed by brother of the appellant vide CP Case No. 974 of 2014 which has ended in acquittal of the respondent and her family members.

4. After having considered the materials produced by the parties in the divorce case, the Family Court has held as under:

“9. Hence, from the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not been able to prove the allegations of cruelty as levelled against his wife/respondent. On the contrary, prima facie the respondent has proved that due to non-fulfillment of their said demand of car, she was subjected to cruelty and torture by the petitioner and his family members. Hence, this issue no. iii is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

10. Now, I would like to deal with the issue nos. i, ii & iv.

Since, the main issue i.e. issue no. iii has been decided in favour of the wife/respondent and against the petitioner/husband, hence this suit is not maintainable, there is no valid cause of action for the present suit and the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, issue nos. i, ii & iv are also decided in favour of the wife/respondent and against the petitioner/husband.”

5. The aforesaid findings have been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Family Court has failed to consider the effect of the respondent staying away from his company just after two and half month of the marriage. It is submitted that the appellant has taken a specific plea that filing of criminal case against him and making defamatory allegations against his family members due to which he had to undergo jail custody have caused such mental cruelty that he has a reasonable apprehension that it would be dangerous for him to live with his wife.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Family Court:

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

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

(iii) Whether the respondent (wife) committed subjected to cruelty against the petitioner (husband) after marriage and whether the petitioner (husband) is entitled to get a Decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

7. In the trial, the appellant examined his brother and father, who as witnesses supported the allegations made by him against the respondent. The appellant has also laid in evidence photocopy of the certified copy of the Informatory Petition No. 19 of 2014 marked as “X”, photocopy of original petition of CP Case No. 293 of 2014 marked as “X/1”, photocopy of original petition of MP Case No. 71 of 2014 marked as “X/2” and photocopy of the certified copy of CP Case No. 974 of 2014 marked as “X/3”.

8. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself as RW2 and her brother Rajeev Kumar tendered his evidence as RW1 in her support.

9. The appellant has stated that the respondent has been staying away from his company since 20th July 2013. According to the appellant, the respondent inflicted various acts of physical and mental torture upon him during th