The court held that allegations of cruelty must be substantiated by evidence, and unpleaded facts cannot be introduced during the evidence stage in divorce proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pawan Singh Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 arising from the judgement and order dated 4.9.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Baghpat in Case No. 37 of 2013 (Rohit Kumar vs Smt. Kavita) whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved without making provision for permanent alimony.

3. The Hindu marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.12.2011. There are no children born to the parties. Accordingly, respondent filed divorce suit on 1.2.2013 i.e. within two years of the marriage. In that, he disclosed that the appellant was quarrelsome from beginning and that she offered rude behaviour towards the family (including the parents) of the respondent. Then, of his own, respondent narrated an incident of the date 16.4.2012 wherein the appellant was shot at and was grievously wounded while she was on a way to her parental home in the company of the cousin brother of the respondent.

4. According to the respondent, she was admitted to a hospital by the respondent and treatment was provided to her. Upon being discharged from the hospital, the appellant returned to her matrimonial home but she did not change her ways. She remained quarrelsome and rude. She also did not restrain herself from using an abusive tongue towards the family members of the respondent. While those general/generic allegations were made as to cruelty committed by the respondent, only one specific allegation of cruelty was made. It was alleged, on 3.1.2013, while the respondent was away on duty, the appellant was alone at her parental home in the company of her aged mother-in-law. At that time, certain close relatives of the appellant including her father, brother and two other persons visited the parental home of the respondent and engaged in squabble with the mother of the respondent. Not only she was assaulted but she was attacked with sharp edged weapon causing grievous injuries to her person. It is also a fact that a criminal case was registered with respect to that occurrence and the appellant and her family members were tried. At the same time, it is not disputed to the respondent that the criminal trial being Case No. 391 of 2016 (Karan Singh vs Pappan & Ors.), under Section 323 I.P.C. resulted in acquittal of all accused persons, vide judgement dated 13.3.2020 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C./A.C.J.M. Baghpat. Though a certified copy of that judgement is not on record, at the same time, on query made, learned counsel for the respondent fairly admits that the said judgement does exist and that it was not challenged in revision/appeal itself.

5. While the above criminal case was pending, the divorce suit was instituted on 01.02.2013 with the allegations as described above. Those were disputed by the appellant. Parties led oral evidence in support of their pleas.

6. Learned court below has accepted the plea of cruelty on the strength of evidence led. In that, it has observed that the appellant had offered very cruel behavior and assaulted her mother-in-law along with some other close relatives (of the appellant) on a day when other members of the family of the respondent were not at home to attend the thirteenth day rites of another close relative. Further, the learned court below has taken note of the other criminal case lodged by the appellant against the respondent being Case Crime No. 51 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and other criminal cases. However, it is a fact that those criminal cases were lodged after institution of the divorce suit proceedings on 1.2.2023. In any case, the plaint in the divorce suit proceedings did not make mention of such facts. It was not amended, either during pendency of the divorce case or during pendency of this appeal. While the respondent never pleaded cruelty arising from the ins