IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty-Mere filing of a complaint would not lead to an inference of cruelty

1. The appellant filed a petition, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Vide judgment, dated 25-9-2000, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dismissed the petition. An appeal, filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the learned single Judge, vide order dated 5-12-2001.

2. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the aforementioned orders.

3. The appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) were married on 3-12-1996 at Gurgaon. On 14-5-1998, the appellant filed a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The grounds of cruelty were sought to be established by pleading (a) behaviour of the respondent in the matrimonial home towards the appellant, as also his family members was rude and inhumane, (b) during her very short stay, the respondent insulted the appellant and his family members over small matters, (c) the respondent is hot headed and in the habit of picking quarrels, (d) the respondent vitiated the atmosphere by abusing and insulting the appellant and his family members, (e) she insisted that the appellant should reside separately from his parents, (f) the respondent never cooked meals either for the appellant or his family members, (g) despite information, the respondent failed to attend the condolence ceremony of the appellant s uncle, (h) on numerous occasions, the respondent telephoned the appellant at his place of posting and threatened him with dire consequences and hinted that she would commit some unlawful act including committing of suicide, (i) the appellant served a legal notice, dated 15-4-1998 through his Advocate at Ajmer. The respondent visited the office of the appellant s Advocate and misbehaved with him, (j) the respondent had concealed her actual date of birth before marriage. The fact that she was two years elder to the appellant, led to mental agony, and (k) the respondent refused to cohabit with the appellant and declined to have sexual relations with him.

4. As far as the plea of desertion, it was sought to be substantiated by pleading that the respondent was posted as Assistant Director College Education, Haryana and lived with the appellant only for a few days at a time i.e. a few days after the marriage, 4 to 5 days during May 1997 and June 1997 and for a similar period at Neemach (Madhya Pradesh). The respondent has been living separately since 1997 without just cause.

5. The aforementioned facts are, in sum and substance, the grounds upon which the appellant prayed for the grant of a decree of divorce.

6. In her reply to the aforementioned allegations, the respondent denied the correctness of the aforementioned allegations and pleaded that even as per the appellant s pleadings, they had resided together for a few days and, therefore, it was near impossible to expect the respondent to have misbehaved with the appellant or his family members, pressurised him to live separately and refused to cook meals or serve relatives. In essence, the allegations with respect to cruelty and desertion were specifically denied. The respondent, in addition, pleaded by referring to specific instance, of harassment with respect to inadequate dowry. It was also alleged that as the appellant was an officer in the CRPF, there was no occasion for the respondent, who was posted at Ambala and thereafter at Chandigarh, to pressurise the appellant into severing his relations with his family. It was further pleaded that after marriage, the respondent joined Government service and made every attempt to meet the appellant at his place of posting and as admitted by the appellant, visited him on two occasions. She lived with him at Ajmer in May 1997 and at Neemach in January, March, April, May and June 1997 but was sent back on one pretext or the other. It was also pleaded that she was never informed of the demise of the appellant s uncle and, therefore, could not attend the ceremonies with respect to his las