The denial of motherhood and forced termination of pregnancy constituted cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also considered the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and granted divorce based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

This is an appeal filed by the wife against the dismissal of her petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), by Additional Family Court, Hisar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.9.2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the parties were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 12.8.2012. Though they cohabited, no child was born out of their wedlock. After marriage, the appellant lived together with the respondent, his mother Santosh, his brother Raju, and Raju’s wife Kajal, in a joint family. It is appellant’s case that the respondent and his family constantly tortured her physically, mentally, emotionally, and pestered her incessantly demanding more dowry. The appellant used to work as a Counsellor in an Institute at Hisar even prior to her marriage, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month. She had saved a sum of Rs. 1 lac before her marriage, but after marriage this money was also taken away by her mother-in-law purportedly to repay the debts that were incurred for the purpose of this marriage. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working and was earning a salary of Rs.25,000 per month. However, after marriage he had stopped working also. Appellant further states that in October 2012 she got pregnant. However, the respondent forcibly got her pregnancy terminated stating that he had no means to bring up the child. Even after termination of her pregnancy she was not allowed to rest as was required for recovery, and though she felt very weak still the respondent and his mother made her work due to which the appellant developed gynaecological complications due to which she was not able to conceive again. Appellant states that this caused her tremendous mental agony. It is also stated that the respondent used to force her for unnatural sex. The appellant further states that the respondent and his family doubted her character and used to call her characterless and abused her with filthy expletives. The respondent and his family did not allow the appellant even to interact or talk with her parents or siblings or other persons from her office as they were very suspicious in nature. Finally in July 2014, it is alleged that the appellant was turned out of the matrimonial home whereafter a Panchayat was convened at the behest of which the appellant was taken back to her matrimonial home with the assurance that respondent and his family members would not torture her after that. In November 2014 respondent asked the appellant to leave her job, and as she wanted her marriage to work, she quit her job on 29.1.2015. On 9.2.15, on her birthday, the appellant was receiving greetings and good wishes from her colleagues, friends and family members, the respondent got suspicious and not only shouted at her but also hurled obscene and filthy expletives at her, called her characterless, broke her mobile phone and hit her. Then on 13.3.2015 when the parties were living in a rented accommodation, respondent picked up a quarrel with the appellant for no reason or cause and left their home, taking his clothes and belongings with him. In this situation, the appellant had no means to maintain herself and was left with no choice but to go to her parental home. It is accordingly alleged that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and deserted her. On this ground the appellant filed petition under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court, Hisar.

3. The respondent filed written statement before the Family Court, and primarily stated that actually it was due to interference of the family members of the appellant that their marriage did not work. He stated that he remained under pressure and couldn’t work because of this reason, and that he was willing to keep the appellant with him and his family.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the ld. Family Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with such