The judgment establishes the grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and emphasizes the importance of evidence in proving these grounds.

1. The wife Smt. Swati Chaudhary has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment, order and decree of divorce dated 7.9.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Marriage Suit No. 1118 of 2011 instituted by the respondent husband Major Sumit Bana for dissolution of their marriage.

2. The parties to the appeal were married on 25.6.2004 at Meerut. The husband was a Captain in the Indian Army who was posted at Pune at the relevant time. The wife was non working but with a degree of M.Sc. The parents of the husband were residing at Ghaziabad whereas that of the wife at Lucknow.

3. The respondent husband instituted the aforesaid suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

4. The respondent husband contended that the appellant wife from the very beginning was not interested in discharging her marital obligations and that her behaviour was non co-operative. She had accompanied him to Pune in June 2004 and remained there with him till August 2004. Thereafter, he was posted at Sikundarabad in December 2004 and the appellant wife stayed with him in Sikundarabad between March to May 2005. He was thereafter transferred to Fazilika in Punjab in January 2007 where he was posted till October 2009. During this period he had to undergo a training in Mau in Indore from 14.1.2008 to 8.3.2008. The appellant wife left the house at Indore on 3.3.2008 without any information to him leaving the house in an open state. The respondent husband also alleges that once on his birthday he invited his friends for dinner at home but appellant wife refused to make any arrangements and her behaviour on the said date infront of the friends was so pathetic that it caused so much of embarrassment to him that he went into a state of shock for several days.

5. The appellant wife used to take anti conception pills without his consent or information and she failed to disclose about her conceivement which ultimately resulted in abortion. He needed a joint photograph for the purposes of the army records and for that purpose he had gone to Lucknow where the appellant wife was staying with her parents and got a joint photograph taken out at the Studio but the father of the appellant wife came shouting and snatched the photographs, tore them and took away the negatives. Even the behaviour of the father of the appellant wife was not good towards him and his family members. Whenever any one from his side visited them for negotiating and settling the matter he was rude enough with them and did not even open the doors and allowed them inside. At times he turned them out saying that his daughter would not go with them.

6. The appellant wife had denied all the above allegations by filing a written statement. She has alleged that the parents and sisters of the husband were not satisfied with the dowry. Her father had spent more than 10 lakhs in the marriage. She never denied to live together or to accompany her husband to Sikundarabad but he himself forcibly sent her to Lucknow. She got admission in B.Ed. at a post graduate college in Ghaziabad while staying with the parents of her husband. She never denied for a photograph with the husband and that her father never snatched any photograph and took away the negatives as alleged. Her husband himself wants to get rid of her.

7. The Family Court formulated the following three issues for adjudication in the case:-

(i) Whether the wife had behaved with cruelty as alleged and if so, its effect;

(ii) Whether the wife had deserted the husband without any justifiable cause w.e.f. 3.3.2008 and if so, its effect; and lastly,

(iii) the relief to which the husband is entitled, if any.

8. In evidence the respondent husband Sumit Bana submitted his own affidavit in examination in chief as PW-1 that of Moti Lal Nehra as PW-2 and Jaikaran Siwal as PW3 all of whom were duly cross examined.

9. The appellant wife in defence filed her own affidavit as DW-1