JUDGMENT

Pathak, J. -- 1. Present appeal under section 19 of Family Court Act 1984 read with section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred as “Act 1955”) is preferred at the instance of defendant / wife being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.9.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Guna whereby application of husband under section 13 of Act 1955 is allowed. The said application is allowed on the point of mental cruelty and therefore, marriage is ordered to be dissolved accordingly.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 1.5.2014, appellant / wife and respondent / husband got married according to Hindu rites and rituals at Guna. After marriage, appellant wanted to continue her education and to appear in competitive examinations, she joined coaching classes. Respondent is a teacher in Government School and as per allegations, after leaving for his school, appellant’s wife used to move around outside their house and whenever interrupted, she raised ruckus and commotion. On 3.12.2014, she fell ill, therefore, taken to District Hospital Guna where she admitted till 7.12.2014. When she did not recover then she was taken to a private hospital where respondent came to know that appellant used to visit hospital earlier also and she suffered abortion two months back.

3. This was the fact which was not in the knowledge of respondent and when inquired, then she quarreled with appellant and ultimately on 24.2.2015, she left her matrimonial home for maternal house. When she did not turn back, then on 13.4.2016, respondent filed an application for divorce against the appellant / defendant on the ground under section 13 (1)(i) and (i)(a) of the Act 1955. Appellant contested the case by filing written statement and denied the allegations. She showed willingness to reside together.

4. On the basis of pleadings, trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidenced led by the parties. After appreciating the pleadings, submissions and evidence led, trial Court allowed the application and issued decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Therefore, wife as appellant is before this Court taking exception to the said decree of divorce.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri N.K.Gupta vehemently detailed out the arguments and submits that respondent / husband sought the decree of divorce on twin grounds of mental cruelty caused by wife and adulterous life led by her. Both the grounds were not available in the facts and circumstances of the case. He referred the evidence surfaced in the case to bring home the facts that appellant never indulged in living adulterous live. He referred Exhibit P-1 which is a medical prescription of appellant which is torn from the right side and thereafter, a date has been written as on 31.5.2014 in which certain medicines have been prescribed to the appellant by Dr. Smt. Sunita Dhakad (PW-3).

6. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that on reference of words (abortion and MTP two months back) was interpolation in the said prescription which has been duly accepted by the concerned doctor when she was cross-examined. Therefore, by interpolation of medical prescription and fabrication of evidence, respondent / husband tried to give an impression to the Court that appellant wife was leading adulterous life and therefore, she had to abort and that caused mental cruelty to the respondent and his family. As submitted, same is not correct.

7. As submitted, appellant is innocent and wants to live in family fold therefore, Court below erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree and reached to the conclusion on half baked truth. He also denied the allegations that she is living as wife of one Ashutosh Pandey who is resident of Village Moharikalan and it was Ashutosh who was responsible for such medical contingency. Learned Senior Counsel denied all such allegations.

8. He also referred the police complaint registered at the instance of appellant because of the fact