IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation can establish mental cruelty, warranting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

1. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following Judgment: (Per: Sri Rakesh Thapliyal,J.) 1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant Sandeep Tyagi under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Original Case No. 1017 of 2015 Sandeep Tyagi vs. Manisha Tyagi, whereby the suit preferred by the appellant Sandeep Tyagi under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant married with the respondent on 02.10.2006 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and this marriage was solemnized in District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh and it was the second marriage of both the parties. Both the appellant and the respondent are living separately since 13.10.2013 due to some matrimonial discord. Thereafter, the present appellant preferred a suit for divorce on 21.12.2015 under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion. In the divorce petition, it was submitted that the respondent was never interested in staying with the appellant and his family members and never fulfilled her matrimonial obligations and even she failed to fulfil the conjugal rights, which are the very basis of matrimonial life and the respondent always call him as “sala kanjus master” and “do kauri ka master”, due to which the appellant suffered through mental agony. It is also submitted that the respondent wife never took interest in any household chores and always used to watch television.

3. It is further submitted in the petition that in April, 2008, the appellant was transferred from Assam to Kendriya Vidyalaya (I.M.A.) Dehradun. The respondent wife bluntly refused to stay with the parents and sister of the appellant and even after utmost efforts, the appellant could not persuade the respondent to stay with his family and to drop the respondent to her maternal home at Muzaffarnagar. Apart from this, the other stand has taken is that the father of the respondent also used to misbehave on phone with the appellant and threatened the appellant that he shall be prosecuted by the respondent. In October 2009, the appellant was transferred to Guwahati, Assam and he requested the respondent wife to accompany him but the respondent clearly refused and the appellant had to go alone. In December 2009, after utmost efforts, the respondent came to Assam but there was no change in her behaviour and she always pressurized the appellant not to keep any relation with his family members. In February, 2013, the appellant received the official transfer information regarding transfer of his job as a school Teacher from Assam to Dehradun but the respondent flatly refused to stay in Dehradun with the appellant and in October 2013, the respondent made it clear to the appellant that the respondent cannot live with the appellant anymore and on 13.10.2013 at 5 A.M., the respondent went to her maternal home at Muzaffarnagar by Jan Shatabdi Express and took away ornaments given by her in-laws and Rs.62,000/- without informing the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant tried to settle the dispute but all turned futile and due to which, he suffered severe mental torture and humiliation and even at job place of the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant was constrained to file a petition for divorce on the ground of crudely and desertion. Apart from this, the respondent wife also filed a Criminal Case No. 1755/9 of 2016 under Section 452, 323, 307, 498 A, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. on 07.06.2016 before the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar, Smt. Manisha Tyagi vs. Sandeep Tyagi and others, Criminal Case No. 276/9 of 2016 under Section 406 IPC, Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Case under Sections 12,18,19,20,22 and