Cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act requires substantial evidence demonstrating severe marital discord, unproven allegations do not justify divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03-08-2022 (decree signed on 10-08-2022) passed by Sri Gati Krishna Tewary, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 628 of 2017, whereby and wherever the suit preferred by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 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 trial court.

4. The petitioner/husband (Appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein) under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 in which, inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 23-01-2011 at Adityapur, Holding No. 221/2/1, Road No. 14, Adityapur, P.S. R.I.T, District-Saraikela, Kharsawan and the reception was held on 25-01-2011 at Sunshine Enclave, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur. After the marriage, both the parties started residing together as husband and wife at N-03 Duplex, Sunshine Enclave, Dimna Road, Mango. After two months of the marriage, the petitioner took the respondent to Varanasi where he was posted as a Junior Engineer in C.P.W.D. where both started residing together and when the respondent became pregnant, she was taken to his home at Jamshedpur by the petitioner. A child was born on 31-12- 2011 at T.M.H Jamshedpur. It has been stated that the respondent is an ill-tempered lady, who never liked his parents and relatives and never cared for them rather quarreled with them. After the birth of the child, the respondent went to her parents’ place at Adityapur and, on one pretext or the other, refused to come back to her matrimonial house. The respondent was requested by the petitioner when the child was six months old to return back to her matrimonial house but she refused and even showed her reluctance in staying with the petitioner at Varanasi. The respondent always used to demand a large sum of money from the petitioner, though the petitioner used to send Rs. 6,000- Rs. 10,000 per month to the respondent and in June 2012, she had demanded an amount of Rs 2,00,000/- without indicating the necessity for such demand. It has been stated that the respondent had filed a complaint case against the petitioner and his relatives with false allegations vide Case No. C/1 1630/12. Subsequently, on the request of the petitioner, the matter was compromised and the respondent came back to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent thereafter, led a peaceful marital life which however, was short-lived as the respondent, on being taken to Varanasi, always pressurized the petitioner of her desire to go to Jamshedpur and ultimately, the respondent was taken by the petitioner to Jamshedpur. On 19-11-2013, the respondent had, all of a sudden, left her matrimonial house at Jamshedpur with her child as well as her belongings for her parents’ place and on the next day, i.e., 20-11-2013, she had filed a petition in the complaint case with the allegation that she was ill-treated at her matrimonial house. Later on, the respondent lodged an F.I.R. in Mahila P.S. being Mahila P.S. Case No. 20/2013 in w