Cruelty and desertion in marital law require substantial proof; a spouse's commuting for work and financial support does not constitute grounds for dissolution of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-09-2024 passed in Original Suit No. 146/2023 by Sri Rajesh Kumar No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara whereby and whereunder, 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 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 13-12-2016 at village Piprasole, District- Jamtara as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent started residing together at Village- Birajpur, District-Dumka and Village-Palojori, District- Deoghar and out of the said wedlock, a son was born who was named Abhinav. Prior to the marriage, the respondent was posted at Middle school Tikopahari, District- Deoghar as a Government Teacher and the respondent had assured that she will get her transferred to Palojori where the petitioner was working as Urja Mitra. It has been stated that after December 2016, the respondent started compelling the petitioner to establish a separate establishment at village Piprasole, District- Jamtara and in order to create pressure, the respondent started quarreling with the parents of the petitioner on petty matters. The petitioner was however, not in a position to stay at Piprasole as the father of the petitioner was suffering from various ailments. The respondent on the other hand, started issuing threats that she will commit suicide if such desire is not fulfilled which constrained the petitioner to report the said matter to the parents of the respondent. The parents of the respondent, at this information, came to Birajpur and attempted to force the petitioner to live separate from his father which the petitioner declined. It has been stated that on 15-03- 2018, the father of the respondent took her away from village Birajpur with cash of Rs. 1 lakh, ornaments etc and the respondent started residing at her father's house where she is still continuing to reside. The petitioner had gone to his in-laws’ house to bring the respondent back, but he was abused and warned that the respondent shall not be sent back till the petitioner separates from his parents. The petitioner had once again made an effort to bring back the respondent on 06-09- 2020, but the said effort proved futile. Being constrained, the petitioner had preferred a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in Original Suit No. 101 of 2021 and since the respondent had agreed to lead her marital life with the petitioner, a settlement was arrived at consequent to which the suit was disposed of. However, the respondent did not resume her conjugal life with the petitioner and several roadblocks were put up by her preventing normalcy in the marital life. There has been no conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent since 15-03-2018.

5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegations made in the plaint has been denied. It has been stated that at the time of marriage, the father of the respondent was compelled to shell out Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioner and his family. The respondent had secured a job of a Governme