Cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act requires consideration of ongoing abusive behavior and long separation, which can justify a divorce even after previous mediation attempts.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present First Appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeks to set aside the judgment and order dated 02.08.2022, as well as the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022, passed by the Family Court, Almora in Divorce Petition No. 118 of 2018, Anand Singh vs. Champa Devi . By the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2022, the Family Court has rejected the divorce petition instituted by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 09.05.1997 according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, the parties were blessed with two children i.e. one son and one daughter. Due to matrimonial discord, the appellant earlier filed Divorce Petition No. 149 of 2017, in which both parties arrived at a compromise through mediation. Thereafter, the appellant instituted Divorce Petition No. 118 of 2018 on the ground of cruelty, contending inter alia that pursuant to the compromise dated 10.11.2017, the appellant had been depositing rs.1500/- per month in the respondent’s account; that, a separate room, kitchen, toilet, bathroom etc. were constructed and handed over to the respondent in the appellant’s ancestral house at Village Matena, in compliance with the terms of compromise. However, soon after the compromise, the respondent allegedly began to abuse and harass the appellant and the minor children day and night, locked the entire house, and even assaulted the appellant’s aged mother. In January–February 2018, due to the respondent’s conduct, the situation became unbearable, forcing the appellant, his mother, and the minor children to shift temporarily to the restaurant of the appellant’s brother at Kasardevi. The respondent frequently visited the said restaurant and allegedly created scenes by using abusive and derogatory language in front of customers.

3. The respondent filed her written statement in the divorce suit denying the allegations, stating that soon after their marriage after Diwali, the appellant left for Pune for employment, leaving the respondent at his village home, and returned only after three years; that, the appellant, his mother, and his brother allegedly treated her with cruelty and neglected their matrimonial obligations; that, after returning from Pune, the appellant and his younger brother jointly started a restaurant in Kasardevi, where the appellant now resides; that, as per the compromise dated 10.11.2017, the appellant agreed to provide her one room in the Matena house and pay rs.1500/- per month, which he did only partially; that, the appellant shifted his mother and children to the Kasardevi restaurant, keeping all other rooms in the Matena house locked, leaving only a small room for the respondent; that, the appellant continued to neglect his duties and obligations towards her; hence, he is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty? If so, its effect.

(ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, its effect.

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata?

5. The appellant examined himself as PW1. In cross- examination, he admitted that the parties lived together in the village continuously from 1997 to 2017. PW2, Kundan Singh, stated that the appellant shifted with his minor children and mother to his brother’s restaurant due to the respondent’s conduct. According to PW2, the respondent used to beat the children