Refusal of sexual relations may constitute mental cruelty in divorce cases, yet sufficient evidence is essential to substantiate such claims for a decree.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 read with Section 28 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 against the judgment dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No.T.S. (Divorce) 67 of 2019 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The brief fact is that the appellant husband being the petitioner filed a petition bearing No.T.S.(Divorce)67 of 2019 in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala under clause (ia) of sub-section 1 of Section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 against the respondent-wife for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce.

3. The fact of the case as arrived in the divorce petition is that the marriage of the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 18.02.2017 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, the respondent wife came to the house of the appellant husband to live with him as husband and wife. The appellant is the only son of his mother Smt. Rekha Roy and he has only one youngest sister, namely Reshmi Roy Banik who is also married and having happy conjugal life and has been living at Dhaleswar road No.7, Agartala. The father of the appellant namely Himangshu Kumar Roy had expired on 14.02.2016. The mother of the appellant is the owner of the matrimonial home. The appellant is a clerical staff of ILS Hospital, Agartala. After marriage, the respondent wife resided in her matrimonial home at Dhaleswar with the appellant husband for 57 days, but within the said days, their marriage was not consummated. According to the appellant husband, she did not allow him to any physical relation with her and also did not allow him to cohabit with her. The appellant husband kept no stone unturned to keep the respondent happy within the said short period of 57 days. He celebrated her birthday on 12.04.2017 and he also took her at Ramthakur Ashram and Agartala Airport to change the mental state of the respondent wife.

4. After demise of the father of the appellant husband on 14.02.2016, the mother of the appellant has been leading her life in her own way without making any sort of interference in the affairs of her son and his wife. She rather accepted the respondent wife with affection of mother in her family but the respondent made allegations to relatives and others that the mother of the appellant was suffering from mental disorder for long period and it was not possible on her part to reside with her under the same roof. The appellant husband tried to convince the respondent wife saying that her allegations were not correct. The respondent wife on many occasions behaved rudely abusing the appellant and his mother in the coarsest and most insulting language.

5. After Bengali New Year 1424 BS, they planned to visit the house of the father of the respondent wife on 17.04.2017 evening but on that date, the respondent wife without informing anything to the appellant husband left her matrimonial home at 10.30 am when the appellant husband was busy in his working place at ILS Hospital, Agartala and since that date, the respondent wife had been residing in the house of her father. The appellant has narrated the facts of mental cruelty meted out to him by the respondent wife and the appellant has never condoned any of the act of mental cruelty of the respondent, and finally, the appellant prayed before the learned court to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground of mental cruelty.

6. The trial Court had issued notice upon the respondent and on receipt of the said notice, the respondent appeared and filed written objection on 29.07.2019. As stated earlier, the respondent wife left the matrimonial home and lived separately in her parental home.

7. On perusal of the written statement on 29.07.2019 the respondent husband came to know that the plea of the respondent wife wa