The main legal point established is that mental cruelty, as a ground for dissolution of marriage, can be inferred from the conduct of a spouse and is not limited to physical acts.

As per M.C. Garg, J. : -

This judgment shall dispose of the present first appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby the appellant/husband has challenged the decree passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Biora, District Rajgarh, in HMA No. 14-A/2005 filed by the appellant-husband against his wife for dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty as well as adultery, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the parties were married according to the Hindu Rites at Biora on 11th December, 1988; out of the marriage, three children namely Ruchi Sahu, Pravin Sahu and Navin Sahu were borne. After the marriage, the parties lived together for a period of two years in joint family. In this period, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. Efforts made to reconcile differences failed. The respondent was not caring for the matrimonial relation between the parties. She even developed extra marital relation with other persons, even indulged in sexual intercourse with other persons and on account of that, the appellant suffered extreme mental cruelty. The appellant was also treated with utmost disrespect in his community. Efforts made by him for changing her behaviour were of no consequence. The respondent/wife served a notice upon the appellant on 5th of June, 2005 alleging that she was turned out of the house by levelling baseless allegations. In this circumstance, the appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which suit was registered as HMA No. 14-A/2005. The said suit after recording the evidence of the parties has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 5th of February, 2008. It is against that judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. According to the appellant, the judgment of the Lower Court in having given findings that the appellant has not been able to prove the cruelty by the respondent on him is contrary to record. The evidence available on record categorically establishes that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. In this regard, the appellant examined number of witnesses who proved the case of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon his own statement as well as the statements given by Dinesh (P.W. 2), Madhosingh (P.W. 3), Pravin Sahu (P.W. 4), Khushilal (P.W. 5), Navin Sahu (P.W. 6), Ruchi Sahu (P.W. 7) on his behalf. He also relied upon the statement made by respondent where she admits her behaviour which tantamounts to living in adultery. It is, therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the total evidence which has come on record, the appellant was able to prove his case that the respondent was not only treating the appellant with cruelty, but was also living in adultery.

4. It is submitted that the evidence has come on record that on 4th of November, 2003 in the building belonging to Balseth, the respondent was found in compromising position with one Laxman. She was caught by Rambabu, brother of respondent in the room where they were indulging in the act of adultery. At that time, Khushilal, Punamchand, Dinesh Sahu were also present who appeared as witnesses and have supported the case of the appellant. It is, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court has simply ignored the relevant evidence which came on record.

5. It is also submitted that as far as the respondent is concerned, she even annoyed her family members in as much as her brother and Bhabhi were also not happy with her behaviour and in fact left her on account of her adulterous behaviour. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire conduct of the respondent was such that she has to be held guilty of causing mental as well as physical cruelty upon the appellant and the judgment of the Trial Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside and reversed.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and