IMPORTANT POINT
The grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act must be substantiated with clear evidence; mere allegations are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

A. Prelude

1. This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the husband/appellant, assailing the judgment and order dated 03.04.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Unnao (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), whereby Matrimonial Case No. 433 of 2016 : Sushil Kumar Trivedi vs. Smt. Raicha, seeking to dissolve the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1955’) was dismissed.

B. Factual Matrix

2. The appellant/husband instituted a suit (Matrimonial Case No. 433 of 2016) against the respondent/wife under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 to obtain a decree of divorce mainly on the ground of cruelty, breakdown of their marriage due to mental torture suffered by the appellant and further, that cruelty was of a kind that the appellant could not be expected to live with the respondent.

3. It was pleaded in the plaint that the appellant, Sushil Kumar Trivedi, got married to Smt Richa (respondent herein) in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, respondent came to matrimonial house and lived peacefully for two months and thereafter behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant and his parents was not good and she started quarreling over every issue. According to the appellant, although he took full care of the respondent as per her comfort and convenience but even then the behaviour of the respondent was always aggressive and cruel towards the appellant. It was also alleged in the plaint that appellant tried his best to convince the respondent, but the respondent used to quarrel and go away to her parents’ house. It was also alleged that on 20.05.2012, at 06:00 p.m., the respondent came along with her step mother Usha, her aunt Sunita and Bitto and one woman to the house of the appellant in his absence and they forcefully snatched key of the box from the appellant’s mother and took away the gold, silver jewellery worth about one lakh rupees and clothes and also insulted the appellant’s mother by using abusive languages and also threatened that if any action was taken against them, they would kill the appellant and after the said incident, the respondent had no relation with the appellant and even she did not want to live with the appellant. On 23.05.2012, the appellant complained about the aforesaid incident to the Superintendent of Police as well as Station House Officer, Gangahat personally and through post.

4. It was also pleaded that about a month after the aforesaid incident, father of the respondent along with his relative, who was also an Advocate, came to the house of the appellant and requested to forgive the mistake of the respondent/wife and other relatives, who had barged into the house of the appellant. According to the appellant, on account of dignity, he agreed to bring the respondent back to his home and as such brought the respondent to her matrimonial home. It was alleged in the plaint that till February, 2014, the respondent continued to come and go from the house of the appellant but during this period the responded refused to have any conjugal relationship with the appellant.

5. It was further pleaded in the plaint that in March, 2014, father of the respondent came along with several people to the appellant’s house and by insulting the appellant and his parents, took away the respondent along with jewellery worth about Rs.5,00,000/- and the respondent told the appellant that neither she wants to live with him nor she wants to have any kind of marital relationship with the appellant and she would ruin them and would not let him and his family members live happily.

6. It was also pleaded that appellant filed a suit, bearing Matrimonial Case No. 721 of 2014, under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights on 28.04.2014. On 05.07.2016, when the appellant was going to court in the said case, the respondent along with her father and s