The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for proving cruelty in a matrimonial relationship under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, emphasizing the need to distinguish between normal wear and tear and conduct that endangers the living of one spouse with the other.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2019 (decree signed on 04.04.2019) passed by Sri Satya Prakash Sinha, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 368 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant u/s 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below.

4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit u/s 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent (respondent herein), wherein it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 25.02.2014 before the Marriage Officer, Sub Registry Office at Sakchi as per Hindu customary rites and rituals on 03.03.2014. The petitioner had earlier filed a suit u/s 25 (iii) (b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for declaring the marriage as void, but the said suit was withdrawn by him on 04.08.2015. It has been stated that after marriage both started residing together as husband and wife where their marriage was consummated. The respondent prior to her marriage was working in T.R.F. Ltd., Burma Mines, Jamshedpur. After the marriage, the couple had gone for honeymoon to Goa and thereafter the petitioner had joined his office on 29.03.2014. The respondent prior to her marriage was aware about the fact that the petitioner has to go out from Jamshedpur for an official tour of fifteen days. The respondent in absence of the petitioner resided at her parental home. It has been stated that while residing with the petitioner and his parents, the respondent started misbehaving with them. The petitioner and his parents had not accepted any amount from the family of the respondent at the time of marriage. At the time of Ashtamangala during evening the respondent convinced the petitioner and his parents and took away all the jewelleries gifted to her at the time of marriage to her parent’s house and on the assurance of the mother of the respondent, the entire jewellery was kept in the bank locker in the name of the respondent. The respondent left for her job at 6 a.m. and returned at 6 p.m. and it was the mother of the petitioner, who had to cook food and also do all the household work as the respondent did not have the time and she was also disinclined to do the household chores. Each week every Saturday, the respondent went to her parental house directly from office and returned on Sunday night. It has been stated that the respondent is a very arrogant lady having a venomous tongue and is also suspicious by nature. The petitioner and his family members were always commented upon as beggars by the respondent who also used obscene language and insulted him. Even on the date of reception, the respondent had caused a misunderstanding by doubting the character of the petitioner though she later on apologised. The respondent had also given false information that on Saturday’s she visits her parental house at 1 p.m. The respondent had also falsely stated that she was pregnant as the petitioner was aware that the pregnancy test was found to be negative. A false case was instituted against the petitioner by the respondent being G.R. Case No. 2648 of 2014 which was after the matrimonial suit filed by the petitioner. It has also been stated that false information was given to the employer of the petitioner maligning him and ultimately, the petitioner had to resign from his job on 30.04.2105 and at present the petitioner is jobless. The respondent had never carried out her marital obligations and left her matrimonial house on 18.07.2014.

5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which th