The court held that allegations of adultery, cruelty, and desertion must be substantiated with cogent evidence, and mere claims are insufficient for divorce.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(i) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 66 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13(1)-(i), (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a Decree of Divorce, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, which required to be enumerated, needs to be referred as under:

It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that the plaintiff/petitioner and defendant-respondent are Hindus and are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law. The petition for the dissolution of marriage has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff (Husband) against his wife (defendant) on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant took place according to Hindu customary rites and ceremonies on 12.12.2009 at village Kanhwara within Godda (M) P.S. After marriage the Plaintiff/petitioner and Defendant/ respondent lived together at the village Nonvatta within Godda district for about 15 days and then defendant (wife) returned to her parent's house.

In February 2010, when the petitioner/plaintiff was in Dumka, he saw the defendant/respondent in Hijla Mela with a stranger and when the petitioner raised this issue before the father of the respondent, the father behaved very rudely.

It is further alleged that the respondent/defendant (wife) used to come to her (sasural) in-law's house according to her will and used to leave sasural without his consent with some unwarranted person. The parents of the Defendant/ respondent have concealed the material facts regarding the respondent’s nature and behaviour. The respondent not only used to abuse her husband but also she used to hurl abuses on her old father-in-law and mother-in-law. She hurt her husband with a heavy metal object, resulting into serious and grievous injury to him for which the petitioner remained under one month of treatment. On two occasions, she struck her mother- in-law with a burning piece of wood and threw hot boiled water on her father-in-law. Apart from this on 31.12.2011 she pulled her mother-in-law’s hair so badly.

The above matter was reported to her father, who arrived with one person but instead of resolving the matter, he ended up filing a criminal case against the entire family of plaintiff vide Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 05/2012, G.R. Case No. 14/12 u/s- 498A IPC. Apart from this, a petition for maintenance under section 125 Cr. P.C. was also filed by this Defendant respondent. Since 01.01.2012, the respondent is living separately at her parents’ house. Hence, both have been living separately for more than five years. The respondent is older than the petitioner and this is fact had also been concealed by the parents of the respondent.

The marriage took place within Godda district and they are residing within Godda district. On 26.06.2017 at 10.00 A.M., the respondent and his father met the petitioner/plaintiff and threatened him to bring him on the footpath, they claimed that they will take money and also harass him by filing cases. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff had no option but to file this divorce case for the dissolution of marriage.

It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner had a motion by filing a petition under Section 13(1)-(i), (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion.

3. The learned Family Judge has called upon the respondent-wife. The wife has filed written statement and altogether six issues have been framed which are as follows:

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

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

(iii) Whether the defendant/respondent-wife, after her solemnization of marriage with plaintiff/petitioner-husband, had sexu