The allegation of cruelty must be substantiated with persistent and severe behavior affecting marital life; normal marital disputes do not meet this threshold.

JUDGMENT :

NBK, J.

This appeal is filed against the Order and Decree dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri, in F.C.O.P. No. 150 of 2019. By the impugned order, the Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner (i.e., the husband) is not entitled to the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, as the allegations were not proved.The appellant herein is the husband, and the respondent is the wife.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 18.05.2015 at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the parties cohabited at the matrimonial home and lived together for a period of time, though disputes arose subsequently. The respondent is employed in the private sector, and the petitioner is also employed, with both parties maintaining independent work schedules. In August 2017, the respondent conceived, and unfortunately, the pregnancy ended in miscarriage/abortion after medical intervention at Rainbow Hospital, L.B. Nagar. Thereafter, the parties continued to live separately for extended periods, and ultimately, from 17.10.2018 onwards, they have been living apart. Mediation and reconciliation efforts were undertaken on more than one occasion but did not result in reunion. The petitioner instituted F.C.O.P.No.150 of 2019 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty by respondent- wife. The petition was contested by the respondent. During the trial, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence, wherein the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 along with three other witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-13. The respondent examined herself as RW-1 and marked Exs. R-1 and R-2. The Family Court, vide the impugned Order and Decree, dismissed the F.C.O.P. No.150 of 2019, leading to the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. T. Sharath, learned counsel for the appellant-husband; and Mr. Sadiq Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent-wife. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Court below failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective and overlooked the fact that the respondent not only committed acts of cruelty prior to the filing of the O.P. but also continued such acts thereafter, culminating in the petitioner’s arrest by initiating criminal proceedings. The Family Court further failed to take note of the material fact that the respondent’s family members were present for the identification of the petitioner at the time of his arrest and also failed to consider the respondent’s own admission that she left the matrimonial home on 17.10.2018 and never returned thereafter. The court below lost sight of the fact that, at the behest of the respondent’s father, the petitioner was arrested, and that in W.P. No. 7554 of 2019 filed by the petitioner challenging the said arrest, the High Court severely criticized the police action and imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, thereby lending credence to the petitioner’s case of harassment. The Family Court also failed to consider that although the respondent was a party to the said writ petition, she did not file any counter affidavit denying the allegations made therein. The court below further erred in misapplying the rationale of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner and failed to take note of the respondent’s conditional willingness to resume marital life only if the petitioner agreed to live separately from his parents, which condition, by itself, amounts to mental cruelty.

4.1. Adverting to the specific query by this Court