The court established that cruelty must entail a series of acts creating an intolerable living situation, rather than isolated incidents, with earlier findings influencing the outcome of divorce petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. The first appeal stands preferred by aggrieved husband in the marriage. The Family Court on judgment dated 24th January, 2025 refused to accept appellant's petition for dissolution of the marriage. In other words, it stood dismissed. Mr. Saurabh Sachan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and Mr. Shyam Bahadur, learned advocate, for respondent-wife.

2. We had required the registry to make English translation of impugned judgment as well as judgment dated 22nd September, 2017, earlier passed by a different learned Judge of the Family Court, rejecting the petition of respondent-wife claiming interim maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have perused both judgments. We have also heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. It appears from impugned judgment, the Family Court disbelieved appellant's case because he was found to have separated from respondent on 25th December 2015, when she was two months pregnant. Said Court found appellant had admitted that neither did he know for how many days his daughter was in intensive care unit (ICU) after birth nor what disease she was suffering from. He never attended his daughter's birthdays. On 25th May, 2019, when respondent went to Bengaluru, appellant did not take her to his room because he was staying with other roommates (colleagues). Having found so, the Family Court proceeded to say, inter alia, as in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, English translation of which are reproduced below.

19. The cruelty must be of such a nature as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony. Cruelty generally does not involve a single act but a series of acts extended over a period of time. The cruelty inflicted may take many forms and must be such as to create an apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it is dangerous to live with the at-faulting party. The standard of proof required is a preponderance of probability and not "beyond all reasonable doubt" as in criminal proceedings. A particular type of statement and conduct may not amount to cruelty in all cases. It depends on the status of the spouse and the environment in which they live.

20-In the present suit, the extended series of cruelty-based acts described by the petitioner, other than the filing of a criminal case for dowry by the opposite party, is not such that it shows the intensity of cruelty and harsh conduct and it becomes impossible for the spouse to live with each other.

(emphasis supplied)

4. Contention of appellant before us is that earlier, respondent had petitioned for interim maintenance under section 125. Her petition was rejected on aforesaid judgment dated 22nd September, 2017. Facts were found by the Court to so reject. The judgment, along with rejection of the criminal revision directed against it by the learned single Judge on order dated 23rd July, 2021 [Criminal Revision no. 9 of 2018 (Smt. Ramendri Pal vs. State of U.P. and others)] were both tendered in evidence by him in the dissolution of marriage proceeding. There is no discussion in impugned judgment to find to the contrary. As such the learned Judge erred on facts and there be reversal of the judgment, to declare dissolution of the marriage. Respondent's contention on the o