The judgment established that false complaints, reckless accusations, and behavior leading to the breakdown of marriage constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The appellant, Parkash Singh has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2015 passed by Family Court, Gurdaspur whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 04.05.2007 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies at village Naushehra Majja Singh, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. The parties lived together as husband and wife at Village Chhina Retwala and one daughter namely Sukhmanpreet Kaur was born out of their marriage. After the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent was not normal and after having some tablets, she used to behave properly. The respondent used to get violent without any reason and started shouting on the appellantpetitioner and his family members. After the birth of child, she used to throw away her baby. Ultimately, the appellant-petitioner got the respondent medically checked up from a hospital in Amritsar, who disclosed that she was a patient of depression and was under treatment since her childhood. Many times, she tried to commit suicide.

3. On 24.05.2011, a meeting was arranged between respectable and father of the respondent at Naushehra Majja Singh. At that time, respectable opined to dissolve the marriage. Since 24.05.2011, the respondent is living in her parental home under the supervision of her parents. The appellant-petitioner is looking after his minor child with the help of his mother. The respondent had treated the appellant-petitioner with cruelty and had deserted him after 24.05.2011.

4. On notice of the petition, the respondent appeared and filed her written statement to which the the appellant-petitioner did not file replication.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP

2. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce? OPP

4. Relief.

6. The parties led their respective evidence. However, the appellant-petitioner did not lead evidence on issues No. 1 to 3 as the onus was on him.

7. The Family Court observed that an FIR No. 144 dated 12.11.2013 was registered at Police Station Ghuman Kalan and the trial is still pending. It was further alleged that respondent had made many attempts to commit suicide but no complaint was made by the appellantpetitioner or his family members against the respondent to the Police or the Panchayat or higher officers.

8. With respect to desertion, the Family Court observed that the respondent had left the matrimonial home on 24.05.2011. However, as per the OPD cards (Mark-A and Mark-B), it transpired that the respondent had got treatment from Dr. Viday Sagar Institute of Mental Health, Amritsar, which continued from 22.06.2011 to 12.12.2012. If the respondent had left the appellant-petitioner on 24.05.2011, then how it was possible for the appellant-petitioner to get her treated upto 12.12.2012.

9. Keeping in view of the above facts, the Family Court dismissed the petition as no case for mental cruelty or desertion was made out.

10. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant made an application (CM-1461-CII-2022) for placing on record judgment dated 12.06.2017 (Annexure A-1) whereby the appellant and his mother Gurmeet Kaur have been acquitted after facing trial under Sections 406, 323 and 498-A IPC, by granting them benefit of doubt. Apart from the said judgment, the matter was referred before the Mediation Centre but the parties could not arrive at any conclusion as per the report dated 20.07.2016 of Vikas Chatrath, Mediator.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant informed the Court that the girl child born out of the wedlock of the parties, is staying with the appellant. Vide order dated 22.03.2022, it is observed that appellant was ready to pay Rs.5 lacs as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife in vie