IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but cumulative effect of facts and circumstances emerging from evidence, has to be taken into consideration to draw a fair inference whether a spouse had been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of other spouse.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.—Marriage, personified as the essence of togetherness, blooms on the fertile soil of mutual support, devotion and allegiance. However, repeated acts of separation, akin to a relentless storm, only uproot this foundation, scattering seeds of discord that threaten the sanctity of the union. Amidst the tempest of distance and abandonment, this bond breaks beyond repair, leaving behind irreparable scars on the landscape of trust and commitment.

The Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by the appellant, against the Judgment dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Delhi vide which the Petition for divorce bearing H.M.A. No. 166/2017, filed by the petitioner under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant/petitioner, who was a qualified MBBS Doctor, got married to the respondent, who was also an MBBS Doctor, on 22.02.1992, according to the Hindu Customs and Rites. They were blessed with one daughter on 09.05.1994 and one son on 11.12.2002. The life story of the appellant/petitioner and the respondent, spans over about 19 years when they eventually separated on 10.06.2011.

3. Essentially, the facts are not disputed though both appellant/petitioner and respondent, have seen each incident in their own perspective. The appellant/petitioner had claimed that the respondent possessed an intemperate and volatile nature, who inflicted a vast panoply of cruelties upon the appellant/petitioner and deserted him on at least seven occasions, including the last and final desertion on 10.06.2011. This fact is not denied by the respondent though she had her own explanation for each occasion, when she left the matrimonial home.

4. It is claimed that since the day of their marriage, the appellant/petitioner was conveyed that she wanted to marry another person. The appellant/petitioner has alleged that the respondent and her family members started falsely claiming that the appellant/petitioner had no intention whatsoever to go for Honeymoon. While they were to go to Goa from 25.02.1992 to 05.03.1992, the petitioner’s father suffered from a heartattack and had to be admitted to ICU, one day prior i.e. on 24.02.1992, on account of which the Honeymoon had to be cancelled.

5. While the respondent has not denied the illness of the father-in-law or of their trip being cancelled but had asserted that the money for the Goa trip had been funded by her father and ironically, from the refund of the tickets, which also was facilitated by her father, the petitioner’s father purchased a Kinetic Honda Scooter instead of returning the money.

6. The petitioner/appellant had alleged that soon after the marriage, he got service in Deepak Memorial Hospital, where he was getting Rs.2,100/- per month being a duly qualified Surgeon but the respondent was earning more salary, on account of which he was humiliated and the rumours were spread in the family that the petitioner was less educated than the respondent. The respondent on the other hand has asserted that both were similarly qualified and there was no question of the family being disgruntled by the alleged financial disparity in the salary of the appellant and the respondent.

7. The appellant had also asserted that in March, 1992, the father of the respondent had called the father of the appellant, to inform him that his daughter would not be sharing her salary and it shall not be thrown in a common pool to be used for sharing the household expenses of the parties. He also threatened that the family must accept this situation or else the family would be implicated in a false dowry cases. In regard to the sharing of the salary of the parties, the respondent has asserted, which is eventually not denied by the petitioner that soon after the marriage, a joint account of the parties was opened and both would credit their salary in the same ac