The judgment establishes the importance of evaluating mental cruelty in matrimonial matters based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, emphasizing the emotional and practical impact on the marriage.

JUDGMENT

The appellant 'the wife' has filed this appeal u/s. 19 of the Family Courts Act feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 4.3.2016 whereby at the instance of the respondent 'the husband' the marriage solemnized on 31.5.2010 between them has been dissolved on the ground of cruelty.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

1. The bio-data of the wife was published in the Magazine published by 'Brahmin Samaj' in which her qualification was mentioned as B.Com. (studying) and the date of birth was mentioned as 2.2.1982. After seeing the bio-data, the proposal was sent for marriage by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant, the respondent, and their family met and settled their marriage. The marriage was solemnized on 31.5.2010 as per Hindu customs and rituals at Indore. According to the respondent, after the marriage, he came to know that certain wrong information was given in the biodata of the appellant such as date of birth and qualification. The correct date of birth of the wife is 28.2.1981 and she did not possess the degree of B.Com. According to the respondent it was made to believe that she drives the two-wheeler and cooks the food, but she did not know anything. Hence the foundation of the marriage is based on lies. After living together for some days, the husband felt that his wife is a very egoistic and stubborn lady in her decisions as she refused to learn two-wheeler driving as well as to complete her Graduation. Accordingly to the respondent, she suffers from smelly sweat which is intolerable for him. She suppressed this serious disease before marriage and tried to hide this by using fragrances and perfumes. She started insisting on partition in the family and his separation from his father and mother. According to the respondent, the brother of his wife is a habitual offender and known criminal of the locality, as many as 7 criminal cases are registered against him. The appellant used to give threats she would falsely implicate his family in a false Criminal case to compel the husband and his family.

2. According to him on 24.10.2010, the appellant created the scene and misbehaved with his mother on a petty issue of washing of handkerchief, she fought the whole night and threatened to commit suicide. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home on 25.10.2010 with her all ornaments and threatened to implicate all the family members in a criminal case. On these aforesaid grounds, on 3.6.2011 the respondent approached the Family Court, Indore by way of petition u/s. 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

3. The wife appeared and filed a written statement stating that her father had fulfilled all the demands of cash, gold, good reception, etc. at the time of the marriage. She denied all the allegations levelled against her., however, she did not allege anything against the respondent/husband. By way of counterclaim, she claimed the decree of restitution of conjugal rights u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband filed the reply denying all such rights. Thereafter, an amendment was made in the memo of a petition by the husband contending that he was subjected to the cruelty by the wife as her brother Santosh Sharma is a known criminal of the 'Banganga' area. The appellant/wife made a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Banganga, Indore against his family members by levelling false and baseless allegations. The wife denied all the amended pleadings by way of amendment in the written statement.

4. The learned Family Court framed 6 issues for adjudication. The husband examined himself and his mother as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and got exhibited as many as 23 documents as Exh. P/1 to P/23. In defence, the wife examined herself as well as her brother as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got her exhibited driving license as Exh. D/1.

5. After evaluating the evidence that came on record, the learned Family Judge has found that the cond