JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J. 

The present First Appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been preferred by the appellant–husband assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 133 of 2017, Priyank Chauhan v. Smt. Vinita Chauhan, whereby the suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per record are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 20.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs and two children—a son and a daughter—were born out of the said wedlock. The appellant alleged that soon after marriage, differences arose due to the respondent’s hostile behaviour towards him and his parents. It was pleaded that for nearly nineteen months prior to filing of the suit, there had been no cordial marital relationship; that the respondent deprived him of conjugal companionship, frequently insulted him before relatives and colleagues, and subjected his aged parents to mental distress, resulting in their deteriorating health. The appellant sought dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

3. Upon notice, the respondent–wife entered appearance and filed her written statement denying all allegations. She alleged that soon after marriage, the appellant and his family demanded a house at Dehradun and, upon her refusal, subjected her to harassment. It was further alleged that her parents had already given ₹1,00,000 at the time of marriage, yet the appellant again demanded the same amount for his sister’s marriage. On her inability to meet this demand, the appellant became abusive and hostile. She further claimed that the appellant’s parents were influencing him to divorce her and remarry for dowry, and that despite her efforts to maintain harmony, the appellant abandoned her and the children without maintenance.

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

(i) Whether the respondent–wife committed cruelty towards the appellant? If so, its effect?

(ii) Relief?

5. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence. The respondent examined herself as DW1 along with four witnesses—her children, domestic help, and a milk vendor—to support her version. Upon consideration, the Family Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty or desertion and found that occasional visits and interaction between the parties indicated partial cohabitation, consequently, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of the Family Court suffers from serious perversity, as it ignored material evidence demonstrating mental cruelty by the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent consistently quarreled with the appellant, deprived him of marital comfort, made baseless allegations of illicit relationships, and threatened to implicate him and his family in false criminal cases— acts which, cumulatively, constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. It was further urged that the parties have been living separately for several years, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

7. The respondent, appearing in person, supported the judgment of the Family Court. She alleged that the appellant had developed an extra-marital relationship, failed to maintain her and the children since 2016, and left the matrimonial home of his own accord. She asserted that she has been raising the two minor children single-handedly while serving as a lecturer in Government Polytechnic, Kotdwar. She contended that the appellant’s petition was a ploy to evade his moral and legal obligations.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this