The court emphasized the importance of substantiating allegations of cruelty and adultery in divorce cases, and highlighted that personal observations and refusal to wear traditional symbols of marriage were not sufficient grounds for divorce.

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. On being aggrieved by grant of a decree of divorce, granted in favour of the husband by the Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, vide its judgment dated 25th November, 2014, the appellant wife has challenged the judgment on various grounds, primarily, the grounds which are enumerated hereunder :

2. The wife has taken a ground in the instant appeal that the allegations levelled by the husband before the Court below, while seeking the decree of divorce, the learned Court below has committed an error by holding that the behavior of the appellant towards the respondent to be cruel, despite of the fact that the Court below has observed that the respondent plaintiff had failed to prove a fact of cruelty. It was also pleaded in the ground of appeal that the fact of illicit relationship of the appellant was also not proved by the husband and, more particularly, when the husband in the suit, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery has not impleaded the adulterer as a party, because under the rules framed by the High Court, when either of spouse comes forward with the case of illicit relationship or adultery, it is necessary for the plaintiff to make the adulterer as a party so that the allegation may be proved, after considering the version of the adulterer.

3. In the absence of the respondent, impleading the adulterer as a party, the decree of divorce could not have been granted to the husband on the ground of illicit relationship.

4. Another important aspect which has been taken as a ground by the wife, while challenging the decree of divorce is, that some of the allegations about the cruelty said to have been committed by appellant wife, has been raised by the husband in the plaint for the first time and no sanctity could be attached to the same because the allegation of adultery or illicit relationship, cannot be an incident which has chanced overnight. It must have been subsisting for a long time and, in such a circumstances, invariably in some of the communications, it ought to have figured at the behest of the husband or reflected somewhere, since this not being so, and the allegation which has come up in the plaint for the first time, much credence ought not to have been placed by the Family Court while dissolving the marriage by decree impugned. It is also case of appellant that Court below lost sight of the fact that in the cross examination as led by the respondent husband, he has admitted in it that he has not filed any case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, meaning thereby, as a matter of fact, no effort has been made by him to revive the marriage and thus, the cruelty was rather at the behest of the husband.

5. Another reason which has been assigned by the Court while granting the decree of divorce was based upon the personal observations made by the Court, wherein, the Court observed that the appellant wife, since while appearing in the Court had not put on ‘bindi’ on the forehead and there is no ‘mangalsutra’ in her neck and thus, the inference drawn by the Court was that there has been a severment of relationship at the behest of the wife, since she had not followed traditions of Hindu wife by putting symbol of marriage.

6. The appellant wife, in her memorandum of appeal, has taken a specific ground that the learned Court below had erred in law while deciding the issue No. 1, based upon the opinion and inferences as it related to affinity of the wife with her previous classmate Surya Giri. The contention of the wife was that the findings, which has been recorded by the Family Court, while granting the decree of divorce from the view point that the said decree would be having an adverse effect on the proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C., is absolutely misconceived for the reason as per wife merely because a proceedings may be on either a civil or criminal side will have no impact on other parallel proceedings, its adjudication wou