Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Anubhav Jain
For the Respondent : Praveen Dubey

JUDGMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This is wife’s appeal under section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-2010, passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS No. 166-A/2009, allowing husband’s petition under section 13(1) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955), dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty.

2. Brief facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 13-6-2006 at Shiv Temple Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal. Soon after the marriage the relations between the parties had become strained which led the respondent to file a petition under section 13(1) of the Act of 1955. The respondent-husband has stated that the appellant-wife is a government servant. She is quarrelsome and stubborn lady. She used to abuse him and threatened to commit suicide. Her constant hostile, arrogant and provocative attitude had caused irreparable damage to his social status and personal life. Constant misunderstanding between them soured their relationship. On 1-7-2006, the respondent-husband was driven out of home by the appellant-wife. The appellant-wife used foul and abusive language to the old and ailing parents of the respondent-husband on phone. The respondent-husband also stated that he lodged the report before the Superintendent of Police AJK, Bhopal complaining about the behaviour of the appellant-wife. However, no action was taken. According to him without any intimation/ permission to anyone in the family of the respondent-husband, she used to leave matrimonial house. She used to behave in an indecent manner in the presence of the guest and did not do any household work. He also stated that on 5-7-2007 the appellant-wife agreed for dissolution of marriage under section 13(B) of the Act of 1955 with consent. However, on 26-6-2008, she resiled from her commitment. The respondent-husband by way of amendment in his divorce petition pleaded that after issuance of notice of the divorce petition, the appellant-wife lodged a false case under section 498-A of the IPC for demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakhs. All these factors, according to the respondent-husband cumulatively, if taken into consideration, clearly postulate mental cruelty.

3. The appellant-wife while filing her written statement has denied all allegations made by the respondent-husband. She stated that she is working as a government servant after clearing a competitive examination. She being an educated lady understands as to how her behaviour should be. Despite she is working with the government, she was fully and sincerely discharging her marital obligation. She is serving and assisting her in-laws despite various adversities. She was always ready and willing to reside with the respondent-husband and even now she is willing to live with the respondent-husband. She further stated that the respondent-husband is a journalist and is pressurizing the appellant-wife and her family members for divorce. She denied filing of any petition under section 13(B) of the Act of 1955. However, she states that the respondent-husband got her signature on some blank papers under the pretext that the respondent-husband was availing car loan and she stood as Guarantor. She also stated that since she belongs to Scheduled Caste and this fact was not acceptable to the family of the respondent-husband. Therefore, in-laws wanted to destroy the relationship of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband.

4. The learned Family Court after framing issues has recorded the evidence of the partie