IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty, as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, requires substantial proof of conduct that severely impacts the mental or physical well-being of the other spouse, making cohabitation impossible.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MUKHOPADHYAY

1. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2022 (decree signed on 01.08.2022) passed by Shri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Original Suit No. 249 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.

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

4. The petitioner – husband (appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent – wife (respondent herein also) in which inter-alia it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 23.04.2017 at Hotel Guru Nanak Palace, Hazaribag as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, both started residing at the parental house of the petitioner situated at mohalla Suresh Colony, Hazaribag. No issue was born out of the said wed-lock. It has been stated that after a few days of marriage, the respondent had started committing acrimonious scenes. On 24.04.2017, the respondent had asked about the bank balance of the petitioner and wanted Rs. 15,000/- per month for his own personal expenses. In the morning on 25.04.2017, the respondent had started quarrelling with the petitioner and his parents and did not show the slightest respect to them. She used to remain confined in a room and used to converse for long hours with her friends. The respondent had expressed her disinclination to do household chores and she did not assist her mother-in-law in the kitchen or in the domestic work. It has been stated that after few days of marriage, when the petitioner wanted to attend his duties in the school where he was a teacher, the respondent prevented him as she wanted the petitioner to proceed with her for honeymoon. The respondent used to abuse and humiliate the petitioner and his family members and also refused to have physical relationship with the petitioner. The respondent had a penchant of going to the beauty parlour and though at the instances of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner had given an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and when after a few days the respondent again demanded money, the mother of the petitioner showed her helplessness at which the respondent threatened to commit suicide and implicate all the family members. The matter was informed to the police through a Sanha being S.D.E. No. 9 of 2017. The respondent had demanded Rs. 10,000/- per month from the petitioner towards her expenses for beauty parlour and phone. It has been stated that on 26.07.2017, the respondent demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner for buying a smart phone and Rs. 20,000/- for buying ornaments. When the petitioner expressed his inability, the respondent became furious and slapped the petitioner in front of his parents and even broke the juicer. A panchayati was also held in the presence of the father and brother of the respondent, but the respondent refused to heed to the directives of the panchayat and instead threatened the petitioner and his family members. The respondent used to frequently call the petitioner on his mobile when the petitioner takes classes and when the petitioner asked her to call later, she abused him and threatened to go to the police station. On 24.08.2017, the mother of the petitioner was slapped and abused when she had expressed her inability to fulfill the demand of Rs. 5,000/- made by the respondent as she only had an amount of Rs. 2,000/- with her. On 24.08.2017 itself the respondent ultimately left her matrimonial house and since then she is residing with her parents. Even after the respondent left her matrimonial house, on 23.08.2017 and 18.09.2017 her relatives had come to the school of the petitioner and ha