The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of mental cruelty, including misconduct and abusive behavior, presented by the respondent-husband was sufficient to grant divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - Application is allowed, as prayed for.

2. Application is allowed and reply on behalf of the respondent alongwith Annexure R/1 is taken on record.

3. The appellant, Ritu Saigal has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2017 passed by Family Court, Gurugram whereby the respondent-husband Rakesh Saigal has been granted divorce in a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty.

4. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11.02.1996. It was an arranged marriage. They were residing in a separate house in Malviya Nagar, Delhi where their elder son namely Arjun Saigal was born on 28.07.1997 and the younger son namely Madhav Saigal was born on 13.07.1999. However, as per the respondent-husband, the behaviour of the appellant-wife was very aggressive. The respondent-husband was engaged in garment export trade for which he had to do national and international travel. The respondent-husband purchased a residential plot in Sector-50, Noida in the joint names of the parties and constructed a house. They alongwith their children lived in the said house from February, 2001 to April, 2004. Thereafter, the respondent-husband purchased a flat bearing No.D-143, Oakwood Estate DLF Phase-2, Gurgaon (Gurugram) in their joint names and the parties shifted there.

5. The divorce petition was filed on 13.05.2014 in which the respondent-husband stated that his elder son, Arjun used to be beaten by the appellant-wife with a clothes wire hanger on several occasions. He also stated that even his younger son was also beaten by the appellant-wife on several occasions. On 30.04.2014, the appellant-wife had shouted at Arjun for being an expensive child to maintain and when Arjun responded that his father used to give him the money, she called the police on helpline number 100 and Arjun too did the same. The police officials came and declined to intervene and said that they would intervene only if the appellant-wife would give a complaint in writing. On 01.05.2014, the appellant-wife threatened to come to the office of the respondent-husband and in order to protect himself, he filed a suit for injunction against her. Thereafter, the conduct of the appellant-wife became worse and finally, the respondent- husband alongwith the children left the house on 07.05.2014 and in this backdrop, the divorce petition was filed. Later on, the respondent-husband did not press ground of desertion.

6. On notice of the petition, the appellant-wife filed a written statement and alleged that family members of her husband used to ill-treat her and she had never misbehaved with his family and children. When she wanted to rejoin the service, her father-in-law asked her to quit the job and refused to look after her elder son claiming that they were not her servants. The father of the respondent-husband was alcoholic despite various illnesses. The respondent-husband left his parental home to save himself from trauma, harassment and humiliation of daily fights with his alcoholic father. The parties had shifted to Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on rent. She admitted that the respondent-husband was engaged in garment export which involved national and international travel. He was based in Chennai from 2006 to 2010 when he was country head of M/s. French Connection under the name and style of FCUK and during this time, she had taken care of her children as father and mother. She had denied that she had ever been rude to the respondent-husbands friends, relatives or colleagues. She further stated that she had undergone a Chefs course in IICA in 2012-13 and also obtained a diploma from City and Guild in 2013-14. She had got admission in B.Sc. (Hotel Management) in Madurai University in 2014 through distance learning. She admitted that the plot in Sector-50 Noida was in the joint names of the parties. She further stated that she had contributed all her savings in the purchase and construction of the sa