IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Cruelty may be mental or physical – It may be intentional or unintentional – It is a matter of inference to be drawn by considering nature of conduct and its effect on complaining spouse.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Sushil Kukreja, J.—The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Court below”) has maintained the instant appeal under Section 19(3) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2020, passed by the learned Court below, in HM Petition No. 76-N/3 of 2015, with a prayer to set-aside the same by allowing the instant petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner-Tejinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) filed a petition before the learned Court below under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) seeking dissolution of marriage from his wife Smt. Raghubir Kaur (respondent herein) by a decree of divorce. The petitioner averred that he and the respondent solemnized marriage on 31.03.2012 at Resham Majri (Doiwala), District Dehradun, Uttrakhand, according to Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock a son, Master Simranjeet, was born. The parties lived together as husband and wife, but after some time the behaviour of the respondent changed and she started disrespecting the family members of the petitioner. Despite requests of the petitioner, the respondent did not alter her behavior and instead she started disobeying his commands and also stopped doing household work. As per the petitioner, many times the respondents left her matrimonial home without his consent and refused to cook food and also stated insulting the petitioner. In the month of April, 2013, the respondent insulted the petitioner and also threatened him to commit suicide. The respondent also leveled false allegations against the petitioner in front of his friends, by calling him Gunda, gambler, badmash, drunkened and womanizer. She also threatened the petitioner that she will call goon from Uttrakhand and kill him. On 09.02.2015 the respondent made a false complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paonta Sahib and in sequel thereto the petitioner was tortured and humiliated.

3. The respondent contested the petition by filing reply, wherein she averred that after the birth of her child, the attitude of the petitioner became indifferent and he started coming to the house inebriated late in the night. She further averred that she never disrespected the petitioner and his parents, rather she tolerated the cruel behavior of the petitioner and also performed all the household affairs without any objection. As per the respondent, she did not know about the illicit relation of the petitioner with one Preeti and when the petitioner on a night came inebriated, undesired calls were received on his mobile phone. The respondent checked these calls and came to know that these calls were made by Ms. Preeti. Ms. Preeti threatened the respondent by stating that the petitioner cannot live without her and asked her to give divorce to the petitioner, otherwise she would be killed. The respondent divulged about the illicit relations of the petitioner with Ms. Preeti to her in-laws. The petitioner, in presence of the relatives, felt sorry for his conduct and also assured not to continue his relation with Ms. Preeti in future. The respondent further averred that, the behavior of the petitioner did not change and he made Ms. Preeti settle at Bata Pul in some company, but subsequently the petitioner and Ms. Preeti started living together in a rented accommodation at Bhuppur, Paonta Sahib. As per the respondent, the petitioner did not visit his house at Haripur Tohana for the last three years and he had also not paid anything to the respondent and to the child. Lastly, the petitioner stated that the petitioner has been living in adultery with Ms. Preeti for the last three years and prayed that the petition for divorce be dismissed.

4. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent, wherein he denied the stand taken by the responden