By the Court.—Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.N. Rai, Advocate for respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by defendant-appellant has arisen from judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 passed by Sri Pawan Kumar Jain, Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Matrimonial Suit No. 1144 of 2006 filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”), whereby it has passed decree of divorce between parties and dissolved marriage from the date of judgment. The grounds on which decree has been passed is cruelty towards husband and desertion.

3. Only two grounds have been pressed by learned counsel for appellant. Firstly, that evidence of appellant was not considered; and secondly, that there was no evidence of cruelty or desertion.

4. Respondent-husband instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 1144 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. Plaint case set up by him is that, plaintiff, when two years old, lost his eye sight and is completely blind since then. However, he did not loose courage and got education, passed out Graduation and thereafter completed course of Telephone Operator from Indore (Madhya Pradesh). He got appointment in the office of District Industries, Kanpur in handicapped quota. Parents of plaintiff-husband searched for a girl who may be life time partner of of plaintiff-husband and in this process parents of appellant-wife contacted plaintiff’s parents and offered matrimonial relation with their daughter stating that their financial condition is very bad and, therefore, they would not be able to spent any money in the marriage and the entire expenses had to be borne by plaintiff’s family. Plaintiff’s parents and relatives talked with appellant who promised to keep plaintiff and his family happy. Ultimately marriage was solemnized in a simple function on 27.6.2003 at Bhagwati Guest House, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. Expenses in the marriage, whatsoever were incurred by family members of plaintiff.

5. After marriage plaintiff finds behaviour of appellant-wife very cruel. She stayed only for seven days with husband and in-laws. In this short time she had shown a behaviour of extreme cruelty with entire family. She did not discharge any function of wife and misbehaved with plaintiff calling him blind man, repeatedly, in front of relatives and family members of plaintiff. Immediately after marriage a ladies music programme was organized at plaintiff’s house but in the evening appellant-wife said that she is not well and went to her room and despite lot of persuasion by plaintiff’s mother did not come to participate in the function. Instead she abused and misbehaved with plaintiff’s mother. When other family members enquired for the reason, she said that marriage was solemnized against her wishes and she has been married to a blind man. She also threatened that in case she is not allowed to live as per her own wishes, she would involve entire family in a case of dowry and may also commit suicide. Appellant-wife also did not allow plaintiff-husband to have relationship of husband-wife and misbehaved with him causing disturbance in the entire family. She never cooked food. She used to call food from hotels. Plaintiff repeatedly said that he is not financially so sound that everyday he can get food from hotel or restaurant, whereupon appellant used to cause hue and cry causing disturbance and mental torture to plaintiff and entire family. Whatever gifts were given by plaintiff’s relatives etc. in marriage, same were kept by appellant in her possession and silently she sent entire costly gift items to her parents home through her brothers who used to visit plaintiff’s house. After leaving plaintiff’s house after seven days, whenever she was requested to come back, she always refused to do so. However, with intervention of some family members she came back on 2.10.2003 and thereafter live