Claims of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated; mere allegations do not suffice under Hindu Marriage Act, leading to the dissolution of the marriage.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Ms. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband. She submits, her client is aggrieved by judgment dated 23^rd February, 2023 made by the Family Court, dismissing her client’s petition for dissolution of the marriage and decreeing the separate civil proceeding filed by respondent-wife, for restitution. Her client has also filed MATA no.170 of 2023 in respect of the direction for restitution.

2. She submits, it was a love marriage. Both parties are service holders in the Government. The parties fell out within two years of marriage. Respondent-wife lodged false complaint against her client and other family members. Her client obtained anticipatory bail, which was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent-wife, right up to the Supreme Court. She relies on the petition of her client, paragraphs 16 to 19, his evidence and evidence of respondent-wife in the divorce case. She draws attention paragraphs 41 to 45 in deposition of cross- examination of respondent. Cruelty and desertion will be evident from evidence adduced by the parties. The judgment be reversed in appeal.

3. Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears for respondent. He places the petition and submits, irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was stated in the reliefs claimed. He adds, cruelty and desertion were cited as reasons for irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Such breakdown is not a ground for dissolution of marriage provided under section 13 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. He submits, allegations in the petition, when scrutinized, do not amount to allegations of cruelty. He takes us through evidence adduced in the divorce case, by appellant and respondent. On query made he submits, his client’s brother (Pintu) did not take the box. Likewise several allegations were made against his client as not having done right with her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law also did not take the box. As such nothing turns on the omissions.

5. For assistance of Court both parties had prepared informal paper books. We record our appreciation. We propose to deal with MATA no.153 of 2023 of the two appeals because controversy between the parties in it is whether or not the marriage should be dissolved. In our view, adjudication of the controversy will likely be basis for answer of the question in the other appeal preferred against impugned judgment, for having had decreed restitution.

6. To begin with we looked at the petition made under section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In paragraph-1 of the petition appellant had emphatically alleged that after the parties had developed intimacy with each other and after having their selection for appointment to the Odisha Financial Service, respondent had proposed for early marriage saying that her family was pressurizing her to get married. Appellant alleged that his elder brother had not yet married and so their marriage be deferred. However, at insistence of respondent and her father, appellant and his family agreed to early marriage. It was solemnized on 3^rd June, 2013 with undue haste because of unreasonable pressurization and insistence. There is no denial in the written statement.

7. The parties are officers in the Government. They must have exhibited academic excellence to have been chosen. There is no dispute that while at training they met and fell for each other. Allegation of appellant was, togetherness lasted for just about two years. The marriage is without issue.

8. While on behalf of respondent it was contended that allegations in the petition do not amount to grounds, either of cruelty or