The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mental cruelty as grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the need to consider the practical and human aspects of the situation.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - Appellant-husband has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2004 of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the HMA') for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 23.11.1990 at Narnaul, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh (Haryana) according to Hindu rites. Two sons, namely, Rahul and Rohit were born out of the said wedlock. As per appellant-husband, respondent-wife is suffering from incurable mental illness and becomes violent and beats the children mercilessly and even goes to the extent of attacking the appellant. The best efforts made by the appellant to get the respondent treated medically did not bear fruits. Respondent even refuses to cook meals for theappellant, therefore, he had to go to sleep without food. Respondent deserted the appellant without any reason more than 3/4 years ago immediately preceding the petition. The efforts made by the appellant to rehabilitate the respondent in matrimonial home also failed leading him to file the petition for dissolution of marriage.

3. On notice of the petition, respondent-wife appeared and filed detailed written statement admitting the factum of marriage between the parties and children from the said wedlock. She denied that she was suffering from mental illness and ever physically assaulted the children or husband or ever denied them food. Rather appellant had levelled false allegations against the respondent to get divorce and it was the appellant who forced her to leave the matrimonial home. She made efforts to get herself rehabilitated in her matrimonial home. Respondent denied all the averments made in the petition and sought dismissal of the same.

4. Appellant filed rejoinder to the petition and reiterated his earlier stand taken in the petition and denied the averments made in the written statement.

5. Vide order dated 12.09.2002 following issues were framed: -

"1. Whether respondent is suffering from incurable disorder? OPA

2. Whether the respondent caused cruelty to the petitioner? OPA

3. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reason? If so, its effect? OPA

4. Relief"

6. In order to prove his case, appellant-husband examined HoshiarSingh as PW1, Sushil Kumar as PW2 and he himself stepped into witness box as PW3. He also tendered documentary evidence and closed his evidence.

7. On the other hand, respondent-wife examined Bhani Sahai as RW1, her mother Saroj Devi as RW2 and she herself stepped into witness box as RW3. She also tendered documentary evidence and closed her evidence.

8. Vide impugned judgment, the Family Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that he has failed to prove the allegations levelleved by him against the respondent-wife.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

10. Perusal of record shows that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement between the parties. However, on 19.08.2011 case was returned to this Court as the efforts made for reconciliation between the parties failed. Again an attempt was made to resolve the dispute and vide order dated 22.12.2015 the parties were directed to appear before the Lok Adalat on 29.01.2016. On 08.04.2016 vide second attempt no compromise could be arrived at between the parties and on their request case was sent back to this Court for adjudication.

11. The issue for consideration in the present appeal would be whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit ashusband and wife again. Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Suprem