The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove allegations of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Family Court, Moradabad, whereby the suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the plaintiff-respondent for divorce has been decreed.

( 2 ) THE allegation of the husband plaintiff was that he married the appellant on 8. 12. 1994. She lived with him for about two months, and thereafter she left the matrimonial house and went to live with her parents. He doubted that his wife had relationship with some other persons. She dtd not permit him to have the sexual relationship. She gave birth to a son in July, 1996, who was not bom out of their wedlock. The relations became strained but the relative of both the parties got compromise written on 2. 12. 1995 wherein it was agreed that the appellant will come and reside with him. The wife after the compromise came to reside with him but after some lime, she left and started living with her parents.

( 3 ) THE appellant contested the suit and she denied the allegations of desertion, adultery and cruelty. The family court found that the respondent failed to prove by cogent evidence that his wife had any unfair relationship with any other person and was not guilty of adultery. The suit was, however, decreed on the ground of cruelty.

( 4 ) WE have heard Shrl Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Prakash Krishna learned counsel for the respondent.

( 5 ) THE core question for consideration before us is as to whether under the facts and circumstances. the plaintiff-respondent has been able to prove the cruelty against him by the appellant.

( 6 ) THE basic allegation of the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant was that she left her matrimonial house at her own will without his consent and without any reasonable cause and she avoided having any sexual relationship with him. The husband also appeared as a witness in support of his allegations. He did not adduce any other evidence in support of his version.

( 7 ) IN Smt. Deepika alias Baby y. Naresh Chandra Singhania. AIR 2000 All 148, the allegation of the husband was that the wife had treated him with cruelty but the Court did not rely upon his solitary testimony in absence of testimony of his parents, brother, sister, friends and relatives and held that they were material witnesses to prove the allegations made by the husband in his pleadings. In Smt. Beena v. Suresh Vir Tomer, 1995 (25) ALR 277, similar view was taken that accusation by the husband against wife should be proved by producing other members of the family. In the present case, the appellant in her statement before the family court denied the allegations made by the respondent. There was no other cogent evidence except the oral statement made by the parties before the family court.

( 8 ) IT is admitted to the appellant that the matter was settled between the parties and they had entered into a compromise duly signed by the parties and their relatives and friends on 2. 12. 1995. In the compromise, it was accepted by the respondent that the appellant shall reside with the respondent. If there was any wrong by any of the parties, that shall be deemed to have been condoned.

( 9 ) THE version of the respondent is that the appellant came to reside with him after 2. 12. 1995 but she left the house without any intimation to him on 20. 3. 1996. It was further stated that after two days, the parties agreed that they shall seek divorce by consent but later on she resiled from such an agreement.

( 10 ) THE appellant appeared as a witness and made a statement before the Court that in fact on 20. 3. 1996, the respondent beat her and forced her to leave his house. Admittedly, the appellant started residing with the respondent after they entered into compromise on 2. 12. 1995 and it is also admitted to both the parties that the appellant left her matrimonial house on 20. 3. 1996. The question is whether she left the matrimonial house voluntarily or respondent forced