The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to infer 'cruelty' from the cumulative effect of all circumstances and allegations during the entire married life of the parties, emphasizing the impact and gravity of the conduct complained of by the opposite party.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the wife-Garima Datta Bindra against the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambala, whereby the petition of the appellant-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'Act') seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent on grounds of cruelty was dismissed.

2. Few facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as pleaded in the petition filed before the Court below may be noticed.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.01.2004 at Haridwar. The parties thereafter cohabited together as husband and wife at Ambala. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter and a son were born on 19.10.2004 and 18.08.2007 respectively. The respondent-husband was of a suspicious nature. He was in the habit of extracting money from the parents of the appellant-wife on one pretext or the other. Despite the fact that all his demands were satisfied, his behaviour towards his wife and children continued to be extremely cruel and abusive. The appellant-wife continued to tolerate the abusive behaviour and ill treatment meted out to her with the hope that with the passage of time better sense would prevail upon the respondent but it was not to be. Despite the fact that the husband had a flourishing business and his income was in excess of Rs.01 lakh per month, still he would not provide money to his wife for the education of their children and for the routine household expenses as a result of which she was compelled to start a boutique in the year 2011 to raise finances for her and their children's basic needs. In August 2012, the husband subjected her and the children to merciless beating and threats whereupon the local police was duly informed. However, on a written apology tendered by the husband before the police, the matter was reconciled. On 19.10.2013 the respondent-husband yet again physically assaulted and abused the wife for which she got herself medico-legally examined in the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. The police too was informed about the assault. With the intervention of respectables from both sides, the matter was once again reconciled and compromised. However, the husband refused to reform himself and would continuously and frequently subject the appellant to mental and physical cruelty to the extent of threatening to throw acid on her. Finally, as the behaviour of the husband worsened, the appellant filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of JMIC, Ambala. Due to the cruel treatment and acts of her husband the appellant-wife shifted along with the children to Zirakpur. The husband continued with his cruel and apathetic behaviour and went to the extent of trying to forcibly take away the children from his wife's custody. Resultantly, the appellant had to seek police intervention and lodge a complaint. It was in this factual background that the appellant-wife sought dissolution of marriage with the respondent-husband.

4. Per contra in the written statement filed by the respondent-husband, he categorically denied and refuted all the allegations of the appellant-wife. He submitted that their's was a love marriage and hence no dowry was either demanded or given. He claimed that it was he who had helped his wife to start the boutique from which she was earning Rs.05 lakhs per annum. Not only this, he had got a sale deed executed of a house in her name on 12.11.2008 for which the finances too had been arranged by him. It was further averred that the wife had shifted to Zirakpur in 2014 without his consent and knowledge and despite that he continued to maintain her and their children. He claimed that the wife's parents did not support her qua the allegations levelled by her against him. He further claimed that in fact the petition filed by the appellant-wife under Section 13 of the Act was a counter-blast to the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by him.

5