The main legal point established in the judgment is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the concept of cruelty and mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, J.

1. The appellant-husband has come up in appeal before this Court, seeking setting aside of judgment dated 04.05.2015 passed by District Judge Family Court, Gurgaon, whereby the petition filed by him under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act 1955’) for dissolution of marriage between the parties by decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Mehak Banquet Hall, New Colony, Gurgaon on 17.2.2001. It was an arranged marriage in which some dowry was given. After the marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife at Gurgaon. No child was born from this wedlock. On the very first night of the marriage, the respondent told the appellant that she was not happy with the marriage as it was solemnized by her parents against her wishes, but the appellant advised her to carry on the marriage as it had been solemnized. Since the respondent refused to live with his family at Nangal, the parties shifted to Ram Nagar, Gurgaon, to the house of the appellant’s uncle. However, the respondent was impulsive and rude towards them, causing much embarrassment to him. When she conceived in August, 2001, she was unhappy and did not care for herself resulting in a miscarriage. Her parents were called to reason with her, but they started quarreling with the appellant and his family.

3. At that time, the appellant was working in the marketing department of his company and had to frequently travel throughout India. During this period, the respondent was very rude to him. She was also misbehaved with her school authorities and had even quarreled with her Director as she was then working for Delhi Public School and she had to leave the school. The appellant arranged for a job for her at SDAV Public School, Gurgaon hoping that things would improve. The misbehaviour of the respondent even extended to his friends as she had fought with his friend Dhawal Shukla and his wife Trusha Shukla on the occasion of Karvachauth in October 2001 when they were visiting the family house of appellant at Nangal. The appellant had to ask them to return in order to get the situation under control and this was insulting and embarrassing for him. The respondent would frequently leave the house without the knowledge of any family member and was under the influence of her brother in law Arvind. She conceived again in 2002 but on the intervening night of 17/18.8.2002, she tried to commit suicide by jumping from the second floor of the appellant’s house at Ram Nagar where the marriage of a relative was being celebrated. She was rushed to various hospitals and finally to Holy Family Hospital, as per the wishes of her family. She had to undergo three operations and all the expenses were borne by the appellant. He cared for her and tried to nurse her back to health. On being discharged she refused to live in the house of his uncle and, therefore, he rented a house in Shivpuri. He could not afford a long leave and as the respondent was refusing to be looked after by his mother or any other person, he got his younger brother Vivek to stay with them so that he could care for the respondent in the absence of the appellant. Her own family refused to care for her. She started fighting with Vivek and he had to leave their house whereafter a full time maid was engaged for her. Her family members got the engagement of Vivek broken by levelling false allegations. The appellant used to go to Chandigarh for official work and would visit Gurgaon every weekend. In November 2003, the respondent vacated the premises and took away all the belongings and shifted to another place without his knowledge. He tried to contact her, but she and her family were not ready to speak to him and threatened to falsely implicate him. Since then she has not rejoined his company intentionally an