The court held that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated with evidence, and mere claims without proof do not warrant a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with dismissal of his suit for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1955) vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 and 16.08.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No.25 of 2023.

3. The factual background of the case is that appellant was married with respondent in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 15.02.2013 at Hotel Maurya, Patna (State of Bihar). It is alleged that father of the respondent assured to the family members of the appellant that the respondent is a very educated, cultured and sober girl, who is able to look after all family affairs and will be proved to be an ideal wife, daughter-in-law in the family of appellant. Therefore, the marriage was settled and father of respondent was not able to bear the huge expenses of the marriage and desired to solemnize in a temple but the appellant’s family took responsibility of meeting the marriage expenses in a hotel bearing considerable portion of the expenses. It is further stated that the appellant’s family is a joint family consisting with his father and uncle who are living in jointness along with all family members in mess and residence. The father of appellant was in job of United Bank of India and was mostly posted away from Patna and all the family affairs were undertaken by the uncle of petitioner as a guardian of the joint family and spread his love and affection to the appellant, his sister as well as his own children. It is alleged that just after the marriage and joining the matrimonial home, the conduct and behavior of the respondent was found unexpected and derogatory to the concept of joint family. She was not participating in the household affairs rather showed the attitude of aggression, stubbornness and habit to avail undue freedom from guardianship and due to these reasons the respondent was always uncomfortable in the family atmosphere of the appellant and frequently used to quarrel with the appellant, his mother as well as uncle without any sense of respect to them. The respondent was also making imputations against the character of uncle of the appellant and tried to spread enmity in the joint family and hatred against the uncle and aunt of the appellant. She also ignored the appellant and was not desirous to fulfill her conjugal obligations. She also insisted upon family for partition from the uncle of the appellant. It is alleged that due to aggressive and rude behaviour of the respondent and insisting for partition between beloved brothers of the father of appellant, the appellant’s father came under extreme depression. The appellant continued to pursue the respondent to mend herself and respect to every family member but no positive change in her behaviour took place and under state of affairs both were blessed with a son on 23.01.2015. The respondent continued to insist for partition to be effected in between the appellant and his uncle’s family then appellant also attempted to take help of respondent’s parents but instead of taking any step to mend their daughter’s behaviour, the parents of respondent also instigated her through their ill advice to hold control over every family member. It is also alleged that on the occasion of birth of first son, respondent’s mother visited to Patna and was welcome by the appellant and his family members where she stayed about 2-3 days. In this interval, parents of appellant had gone to attend a marriage function out of Patna and taking advantage of absence of the appellant’s parents, the respondent and her mother started quarrelling with u