IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarifies that allegations of mental cruelty must be substantiated with evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

JUDGMENT :

J. NISHA BANU, J.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1994, against the order and decree dated 09.03.2020 passed in O.P. No. 1488 of 2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

1. The petitioner/husband has filed a petition, before the Court below, seeking for dissolving of his marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same came to be allowed. Aggrieved against such order, the respondent/ wife has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.

2. Mr. J. Abdul Hadi, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

2.1. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 11.04.2016 at Thangam Maligai, No. 11. T.H. Road. Chennai 600 081 as per Hindu rites and customs. There was no issues out of the wedlock. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant behaved as a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law to the respondent and his family. The respondent and his mother often accused the appellant that the dowry amount was very meagrely given for the appellant at the time of marriage. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant's husband never consulted or referred any matter of concern with the appellant at the time of taking decisions and did not move well with her, with whole heart and free will.

2.2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent/husband expressed his hatred feeling when the appellant tried to move close with him. She also alleged that the respondent/ husband is having an illicit relationship with one Anitha and when the same was questioned by the appellant, the respondent behaved rudely and roughly with her.

2.3. Having no other alternative, the appellant left the matrimonial home on 20.12.2017 and stayed with her parents. According to the appellant, though she was ready to live with the respondent, the respondent has filed a petition in O.P. No. 1488 of 2017 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai seeking to dissolve the marriage, which came to be allowed. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.

2.4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court below failed to consider that on the side of the respondent/husband, there was no pleadings, documentary or oral evidence, let in to prove his contentions as to mental cruelty, which was taken as a major ground in allowing the petition by the Court below.

2.5. The learned counsel further contended that the Court below has wrongly placed the burden of proof upon the appellant for proving mental cruelty, which is in complete contradiction to the established rule that the person alleging a fact should prove the fact. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks the interference of this Court to the order and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in O.P. No. 1488 of 2017 dated 09.03.2020, thereby allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. Mr. K. Kannan, learned counsel for the respondent made the following submissions:

3.1. The facts stated by the appellant are not disputed by the respondent. After their marriage, the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband started their marital life at the residence of the respondent. The appellant neglected the respondent and his family members. The appellant started to suspect the character of the respondent by saying that his mobile phone is engaged. The appellant started to abuse the respondent with vulgar words and she did not allow him to sleep and made unnecessary quarrels with the respondent.

3.2. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the appellant had stayed only two months in the matrimonial home and thereafter, she went away, without giving any information and stayed at her parents' house. The respondent has advised the appellant on many occasions