The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of one party, including lodging false criminal cases and seeking to terrorize the other party and their family, can amount to mental cruelty justifying the grant of divorce.

Rajesh Bindal, J. - The wife is in appeal before this court against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2009, passed by the learned court below whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce was accepted.

2. Briefly, the facts, as are available on record are that marriage of the parties was solemnized as per Sikh rites on 2.2.1997 at Ludhiana. After the marriage, both the parties lived together and cohabited with each other at Ludhiana. Out of the wedlock, one child-Gurjap Singh was born on 29.7.2000, who at present is living with the appellant (mother).

3. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the plea that behaviour of the appellant and her family members towards the respondent-husband was rude and unbecoming from the very beginning. The family of the appellant was continuously interfering in their matrimonial life. Father of the appellant, who was employed as District Manager in Markfed was involved in a corruption case and FIR No. 75 was registered against him on 1.5.1996 at Police Station, Jagraon for embezzlement of paddy. On account of this reason, the appellant was pressuring the respondent to live in her parental home as Ghar Jawai as there was no other earning member in the family. The appellant used to spend lavishly on herself and also her other family members including two unmarried sisters without taking care of the members of the family in the matrimonial home.

4. On 25.9.1999, charges were framed against the father of the appellant. At that stage, the appellant pressurised the respondent to accompany her and live in her parental home, to which he did not agree. Ultimately, she left the matrimonial home on 5.11.2000 along with her son. While leaving, she took along with her all gold ornaments and other costly items. After all efforts to bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home failed, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 13.5.2001. Though in that petition, the stand taken by the appellant was that she was ready and willing to join the company of the respondent-husband, but her attitude was totally indifferent. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 13.6.2002, the appellant along with her family members and other persons came to the house of the husband, where a fight took place. The matter was reported to the police. The family members of the appellant were taken into custody by police but later on let off considering the dispute to be matrimonial. For the aforesaid incident, when no action was taken by the police on the complaint made by the respondent-husband, a private complaint was filed in the court on 3.9.2003 against the appellant and her family members in which they have been summoned vide order dated 5.8.2004 (Ex. P20) to face trial. The aforesaid complaint is still pending.

5. It was further pleaded by the respondent-husband in the divorce petition that on 20.6.2002, FIR No. 207 (Ex. P2) was got registered by the appellant against the husband and his family members including far off relatives under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Though other family members got the concession of anticipatory bail, however, the respondent-husband was arrested on 3.9.2002; was remanded in police custody for two days and thereafter was kept in judicial custody for two days and was released on bail only on 7.9.2002. The aforesaid FIR being totally false, cancellation report was submitted by the police, which already stands accepted by the court. However, the appellant/complainant in the aforesaid FIR being not satisfied filed protest petition, which was considered as a private complaint and is still pending. However, the accused therein, namely, the respondent-husband and his family members are still to be summoned. The matter did not end here as immediately thereafter one FIR No. 322 was got registered by the father of the appellant against the respondent-