Mental cruelty can justify divorce when one spouse's conduct causes reasonable apprehension of harm to the other, as established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

1. List revised. None is present for the respondent, in either call.

2. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The matter was last listed on 15.07.2024. On that date also, none appeared for the respondent. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed, peremptorily.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arising from the judgment and order dated 19.05.1999 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, in Suit No.239 of 1995 (Pramod Ram Tripathi Vs. Smt. Babita Tripathi). By that order, learned court below has dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and awarded Rs.800/-per month towards maintenance to the appellant.

5. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.02.1990. They have been living separately since 1995. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent on 14.11.1995. It was decreed on 19.05.1999. Thus, marriage is about 34 years old. Parties have been living separately for about 29 years. The divorce decree itself was granted about 25 years ago. No cohabitation has taken place over long period of their separation. As on date, the appellant would be more than 50 years of age whereas the respondent would be about 60 years old.

6. As to status of the parties, it has been disclosed, the appellant is an unemployed. She is residing in a portion of her matrimonial home at Village Bhauwapar, District Gorakhpur. The respondent is described to be working as Chief Accountant in the office of the General Manager, Northern Eastern Railways and drawing salary in excess of Rs.1,20,000/-per month. For reason of his work the respondent was residing away from the parental home in Village Bhauwapar, District Gorakhpur.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we find that the divorce was sought by the respondent on allegation of cruelty. For that, according to the respondent, the appellant offered cruel behaviour from the very beginning inasmuch as she chose to abandon her matrimonial home of her own whims, from the very beginning. Thus allegedly, the appellant was habituated to leave her matrimonial home on whims for days. If her behaviour was questioned, she was further habituated to entering into quarrel with the respondent and his family members as also with neighbours who sometimes tried to mediate. Thus, this fact was proven by the respondent on the strength of his oral evidence as also oral evidence of Harish Chandra Mishra and Sri Ganga described to be villagers / neighbours of the respondent.

8. Further act of cruelty was described inasmuch as allegedly, the appellant was described to have been accompanied by certain men who were strangers to the respondent. If such behaviour was questioned, the appellant is further alleged to have abandoned her matrimonial home again or having entered into quarrel. As to allegation of dowry levelled by the appellant, the same was denied by the respondent.

9. On such facts, the respondent claimed cruelty to have been committed towards him as made it impossible for him to continue matrimonial relationship with the appellant.

10. On the other hand, the appellant denied the allegations made against her. She submitted that she had never voluntarily abandoned her matrimonial home. In fact, being harassed with demand of dowry made by the respondent and his family members, she was forced to seek shelter in the house of her maternal uncle. At the same time, in her evidence she admitted that no demand of dowry had been raised at the time of her marriage. As to allegation of demand of dowry, on being questioned if any complaint had been lodged, the appellant admitted that no such complaint had ever been lodged. However, she added that once her father went to lodge a complaint but he was advised against the same by his well-wishers.

11. Learned court below has taken note of the fact that the father of the appe