The judgment emphasized the requirement for grave and weighty conduct to constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, and highlighted the impact of mental illness on the capability of having a healthy domestic relationship.

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

1. The present appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide which petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-husband was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 24.11.2008. It was an arranged marriage. No child was born out of the said wedlock. The assertions made by the appellant before the Family Court were that while going to Manali for honeymoon just after 2-3 days of marriage, the respondent tried to jump out of the running taxi and started shivering and on many occasions she used to talk in foul language and kept herself locked in bathroom for several hours. It was also averred that the respondent-wife would lit lamp at night and many times she used to sleep for 24 hours at a stretch. The appellant-husband approached the parents of the respondent-wife but they extended no help. The appellant gathered information from the neighbours of the respondent-wife that before marriage, the respondent-wife used to remain ill and was suffering from mental disease and had been under treatment since 9.8.2007.

3. Further stand taken by the appellant was that the respondent never showed any interest in the domestic work and used to make lame excuses to perform her matrimonial duties. The respondent being a short tampered lady, caused mental harassment and torture to the appellant. The respondent-wife left the matrimonial home without the consent of the appellant-husband in September, 2009. Efforts for bringing her back failed. Rather the parents of the respondent had ill-treated the appellant-husband when he made a request to bring her back.

4. Before the trial Court, the case was contested by the respondent-wife. She denied all the allegations made against her. In the counter allegations, the respondent-wife asserted before the Family Court that it was the appellant and his family, who used to torture her for the demand of dowry. The family of the appellant raised a demand of Rs. 4.00 lakhs despite the fact that the parents of the respondent-wife had already spent Rs. 5.00 lakhs on the marriage. It was also pointed out by the respondent before the Family Court that the appellant-husband had initially filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act which was later on withdrawn by him. Therefore, a fresh divorce petition could not be presented and was liable to be dismissed. Moreover, because of the ill-treatment, the respondent-wife was constrained to file a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as a complaint under Section 498-A IPC. The respondent-wife had claimed that she was well behaved and had always performed her matrimonial duties properly. It was the appellant and his family members who had often misbehaved with her and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. The allegations that she was suffering from mental disorder prior to her marriage and her parents had concealed this fact were denied.

5. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Family Court on 12.2.2014:-

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the grounds as mentioned in the petition ? OPP

2. Relief."

6. In order to prove his case, the appellant stepped into the witness box as PW-1 besides examining Dr. Shivani Aggarwal as PW-2 and Sanjay, Medical Record Keeper as PW-3, who had produced the medical record.

7. To rebut the case, the respondent-wife stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and had placed on record the documents Ex. R-1 and Ex.-R2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, the Family Court has drawn the conclusion that the appellant-husband had failed to prove both the grounds o