The burden of proof lies with the appellant to establish claims of cruelty and desertion, which must be supported by credible evidence, and mere allegations without proof are insufficient for divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2024 and Decree dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Original Suit No.288 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Petitioner (appellant herein) seeking a decree of divorce against his wife (respondent herein), has been dismissed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant/ plaintiff needs to be referred herein as under:

The petitioner was married with the respondent on 29.11.2017, at the Baba Basukinath Temple, Dumka, according to the Hindu rituals and rites without any dowry.

The petitioner/appellant is a doctor and he does his private practice, whereas the respondent is a medical student of 4th year. After marriage, the parties started to live together as husband and wife in the petitioner's residential house.

It has been alleged that just after some days of marriage, the respondent started to live under the pressure of her brothers namely Sailesh Prasad Singh and Brajesh Prasad Singh and she used to give physical and mental torture to the petitioner. Both the aforesaid brothers of the respondent were interfering in the conjugal life of the petitioner and his wife and they were giving mental torture to the petitioner.

The respondent was always acting at the instance of her said brother and she did not like the petitioner due to which the petitioner suffered a lot of mental pain and agony and spent his sleepless nights. It has further been stated that the respondent used to frequently flee away to her Naihar without asking the petitioner and his family members and ultimately on 20.02.2018, the respondent fled away from the petitioner's house without asking the petitioner or his family members.

Thereafter, on 28.02.2018, the respondent got surgery of her uterus for about 20 cm in length at the instance of her brothers in the Gleneagles Hospital, Chennai without knowledge and consent of the petitioner, so that she may not conceive and deliver a baby.

It has been alleged that both the aforesaid brothers of the respondent wants that the respondent should not conceive and deliver child and she can live far away from her husband, so that they can take all the earnings of the respondent from her practice and they had got the surgery of the respondent's uterus for the aforesaid purpose without knowledge and consent of the petitioner.

Thereafter, on 04.07.2018, the respondent again came to the house of petitioner, whereafter the petitioner came to know about the surgery of the respondent.

On 07.07.2018, the respondent again left the petitioner's house without asking him and his family members and further there was no cohabitation between the parties during the said period.

It has been alleged that due to the aforesaid surgery of the respondent's uterus, there is no chance of new generation of petitioner from the wedlock of respondent and there is no issue from the wedlock of the parties. The petitioner is unable to live with the respondent due her aforesaid cruel act and further, lack of her love and affection towards the petitioner.

It has been stated that the cause of action for this suit arose on 20.02.2018, when the respondent finally left the house of petitioner and it further arose on 28.02.2018, when the respondent got surgery of her uterus in the Glengagle Hospital, Chennai without knowledge and permission of the petitioner and further on 04.07.2018 and 07.07.2018