The main legal point established in the judgment is that baseless allegations of dowry demand and living separately for an extended period can constitute cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, leading to the grant of divorce.

S.K. Gangele, J.;-

1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the Trial Court in Case No. 7A/12 HMA granting a decree of divorce. The respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for divorce. He pleaded that the marriage between him and the appellant/defendant was solemnised on 23/4/2000 at Rai Bareilly. After the marriage, the defendant had lived with the plaintiff upto 31/12/2002. At that time, the defendant was pregnant and she had gone to Morena with one Sunil Kumar Shrivastava for some check up. Thereafter, she had given semen analysis report to the plaintiff and when she was asked why she had gone to Morena with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava, she left the house and threatened that she would teach a lesson to the plaintiff. A notice was sent to the defendant on 20/3/2010. It was mentioned in the notice that the defendant shall live with the plaintiff and perform the obligations as wife. However, the notice was sent back without any reply. The defendant lodged a report for offence punishable under section 498A IPC against the family members of the plaintiff on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 561/04 is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalon at Urai. The plaintiff further levelled allegations that the defendant had illegal relationship with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava and she had been living with him and did not return to the house of the plaintiff.

2. Defendant in her written statement denied the pleadings of the plaint. She specifically denied that she had any relationship with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava or she had gone with him on 12/6/2001. She further pleaded that on 6/7/2003 the plaintiff had made demand of dowry from her and he had beaten her and also drove her out of the house. She further pleaded that she had been living with her mother and brother at Urai. She further denied that she had received any notice from the plaintiff and she does not want to live with him. She pleaded that the plaintiff wants to remarry and he had made a demand of dowry from the defendant, hence, it is not possible to live with the plaintiff. Earlier also, the plaintiff filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed on account of non-prosecution of the suit.

3. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence, documentary and oral, held that the defendant had levelled allegations without any basis against the plaintiff in regard to demand of dowry, and without any basis, the defendant had been living separately from the plaintiff for the last eight years, hence, she had practiced cruelty with the plaintiff and granted decree of divorce.

4. The plaintiff deposed the same facts which have been pleaded by him in the plaint. In his affidavit filed before the Trial Court, he specifically pleaded that the defendant is not willing to live with him as his wife, hence, he filed a suit for divorce. She had levelled illegal allegations in regard to demand of dowry and lodged a report in this regard at the Police Station, on the basis of which a criminal case has been registered against the plaintiff.

5. Ramprakash Shakya (PW 2) in his evidence deposed that the defendant had been living with another person Sunil Shrivastava and she had illegal relationship with Sunil Shrivastava and she was pregnant at the time of marriage. Same facts have been stated by another witness Suresh Shrivastava (PW 3).

6. Defendant in her evidence deposed that on 6/7/2003 the plaintiff and his younger brother Mukesh, father Ramsingh and mother had made a demand of dowry of Rupees 10,000/- and a motorcycle from her. They had beaten her and also abused her and thereafter she was forced to leave the house. A private complaint was also registered in this regard by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Urai for commission of the offence punishable under section 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She further deposed that her father was died earlier and there