Cruelty in the context of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must give the wronged party a reasonable apprehension of unsafe and injurious living conditions, and the evidence must be substantial and not trivial.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

Instant appeal has been preferred by the wife – Anita, against the judgment and decree dated 25th October, 2016, passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar, (in short 'the Court below'), vide which the petition filed by the respondent-husband/Shakti, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife, was allowed.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as pleaded in the petition filed by the respondent-husband (petitioner therein) before the Court below, may be noticed.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09th November, 2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at District Jhajjar. Two children were born out of this wedlock. The respondent-husband alleged that the behaviour of the wife from the very beginning of the marriage was extremely rude and cruel towards him and his family. She would misbehave with his friends and relatives and would also use abusive language. The wife was working as a lecturer in a college, whereas, the husband was employed as a constable in the Haryana Police. The wife would object to the odd duty hours of the husband as she wanted him around all the time. It was further alleged that in fact, soon after the marriage of the parties during their honeymoon itself, the wife declared that her marriage had been solemnized with the respondent-husband against her wishes and she wanted to get married in a rich family. On 29th January, 2009, when the wife was operated upon at PGIMS, Rohtak, instead of handing over her valuables to the husband, she gave everything to her brother-in-law. On her discharge from the hospital, she refused to live with the husband until and unless he moved out from the joint family house, where, the parties had been residing. The wife would often leave the matrimonial home without informing the husband. Many panchayats were convened to resolve the matter, but the wife refused to accompany the husband back to the matrimonial home. The wife and her parents would continuously threaten the husband that they would kidnap their minor daughter, who was in his custody and implicate him in false dowry cases, if he failed to bow down to their terms and conditions. The appellant-wife along with their minor son had been living with her sister and brother-in-law at Bahadurgarh ever since 06.07.2013. The husband thus prayed for dissolution of the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. Per contra, in the written statement filed before the Court below, the wife categorically refuted and denied all the allegations levelled by the husband in his petition. She submitted that it was the husband, who had shut the doors of his house on her at Bahadurgarh and she had ever since then been residing in a rented accommodation along with her minor son. She further submitted that it was the husband who had been intentionally subjecting her to harassment and cruelty. In fact, it was the husband who had deserted her with the aim of contracting a second marriage.

5. In response to this, the husband filed a replication wherein, he controverted the submissions of the respondent-wife and reiterated his stand as taken in the petition.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Court below:-

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty ? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

3. Relief.”

7. In order to prove their case, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. The husband himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and examined three other witnesses. On the other hand, wife examined herself as RW-1 besides examining three more witnesses in support of her case. The Court below examined two court witnesses i.e. Chand Ram and Usha Devi as CW-1 & CW-2, respectively.

8. After analyzing the evidence led by the parties, the Court be