IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged separation exceeding a decade constitutes mental cruelty, and refusal to resume cohabitation indicates desertion, justifying divorce under Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022, passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi, in Regular Suit No.607 of 2019: Apoorva Gupta versus Vandana Gupta, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. In response to a notice issued by this Court, the respondent had put in appearance by filing a Vakalatnama appointing three learned Advocates to represent her before this Court. The appeal was admitted by means of an order dated 13.01.2023 and the trial court’s record was summoned. Thereafter the following order was passed on 07.08.2023:

“1. The appeal was mentioned by leaned counsel for the appellant. A written notice has also been served to learned counsel for the respondent namely Sri Ram Maurya.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has failed to appear when the case was called out.

3. The case is ready for hearing.

4. List this matter for ex-parte hearing. Let a notice be sent to the respondent along-with a copy of this order about the date fixed.

5. List in the week commencing 21.8.2023.”

3. The office has reported on 13.12.2023 that the notice issued to the respondent has been served through her mother, which is sufficient service, but she has not put in appearance before this court to oppose the appeal and, therefore, the appeal was heard ex-parte on 21.08.2024.

4. In the plaint filed on 06.08.2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi, the plaintiff-appellant pleaded that the parties got married on 14.04.2012 at Hardoi. The defendant stated that she would not live in Mallawan town and will live at Delhi. The plaintiff kept her at Delhi for some time but when a proper arrangement for residence at Delhi could not be made, he kept the defendant at Mallawan with his parents. The defendant did not cooperate in performance of the house-hold chores and she went away with her father and she took away all her clothes and jewelry with her. The defendant had lodged a false criminal case against the plaintiff, his parents and both his sisters, in which the plaintiff and his family members were acquitted and accepting the defendant’s condition that she will not go to Mallawan, the plaintiff started living with her at Delhi. For this reason, the plaintiff’s parents severed their relations with the plaintiff and they deprived him of all the rights in their properties.

5. On 09.05.2014, the defendant went to live with her parents and she delivered a baby girl in a Nursing Home on 12.07.2014, in which the plaintiff rendered his full cooperation, but some quarrel took place there and the plaintiff was threatened and turned away and he was not involved in the ceremonies of his daughter. The plaintiff used to send money-orders for some time but later on the defendant declined to accept the same and she did not let the plaintiff meet his daughter.

6. The plaintiff further pleaded that false complaints were made by the defendant against him and the Women’s Commission held mediation between the parties, but the defendant did not agree to live with the plaintiff or to let him meet his daughter. The defendant treated the plaintiff in a cruel manner, she did not cooperate in house-hold chores at Delhi, she indulged into quarrel and beatings almost on daily basis and she got the plaintiff threatened for his life by her brothers. The plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant was living separate from him for the past two years without any cause and she was threatening to entangle him in a false case.

7. The defendant filed a written statement in the suit denying the plaint allegations and she alleged that she was harassed for demanding dowry and the plaintiff left her at her father’s residence on 09.05.2014 and since then he did not even inquire about her well being. The defendant stated that she was willing to perform her conjugal obligations.

8. The Family Court f