Acquittal in a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC or dismissal of DVC proceedings does not automatically constitute matrimonial cruelty; cruelty must be proven through cogent evidence of specific acts causing serious mental or physical suffering, not merely through employment preferences or separate living.

JUDGMENT :

K.Sujana, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act by the appellant challenging the order dated 11.06.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.824 of 2015 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short ‘Family Court’). The appellant herein is the wife and the respondent is husband and he filed F.C.O.P.No.824 of 2015 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as ‘appellant-wife and respondent-husband’.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the appellant- wife and respondent-husband are the legally wedded spouses. Their marriage was solemnized on 10.04.2010 at Venkateswara Kalyana Mandapam, Vanasthalipuram and they were blessed with a female child on 02.03.2011. According to the respondent- husband, there was no demand or exchange of dowry or gifts, as the mother of the respondent-husband and the father of the appellant-wife are cousins. The respondent-husband alleged that, at the time of marriage, the appellant-wife was employed at Capital IQ Systems Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and had agreed to resign from her job and reside with him at Narsipudi Village, while taking care of his parents. However, after the marriage, she refused to resign and insisted him to shift to Hyderabad. Accordingly, the respondent-husband shifted to Hyderabad and secured employment as a Senior Faculty in Narayana Junior College. The respondent-husband alleged that, thereafter, the appellant-wife neglected him, frequently picked up quarrels, prevented him from visiting and speaking to his parents, and insisted him to reside at her parents' house as an illatom son- in-law. He further alleged that the appellant-wife neglected him and their child, spent the family income on luxuries, and subjected him to mental cruelty. Further, she underwent abortions twice without his knowledge or consent and, when questioned, lodged a complaint against him before the Women Police Station, Saroornagar, which was registered as Crime No.93 of 2013. According to him, the dispute was subsequently compromised through intervention of elders and the appellant- wife resumed cohabitation with him. The respondent-husband further alleged that, pursuant to an understanding before the elders that the appellant-wife would join him if he secured employment near his native place, he obtained employment as a Lecturer at Rajahmundry. However, the appellant-wife refused to join him. He therefore issued a legal notice dated 31.05.2014 calling upon appellant-wife to resume matrimonial life. Though she received the notice, she sent a reply expressing her unwillingness to join him at Narsipudi making false and untenable allegations. Hence, the respondent-husband filed the above F.C.O.P., seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.

4. The appellant-wife filed counter therein denying the material averments of the petition, except the factum of marriage and birth of the child. She admitted that she was employed with Capital IQ Systems Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, She contended that, prior to the marriage, the respondent-husband had represented himself to be a postgraduate, working as a Lecturer in Prathibha Junior College, Kukatpally, with a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. She denied having agreed to resign from her job or to reside at Narsipudi Village with the respondent-husband and his parents. She denied the allegations of neglect, quarrelling, leading a luxurious life, refusing to prepare food, spending her earnings for personal luxuries, insisting the respondent-husband to reside at her parental home, or subjecting him to any cruelty. She also denied having undergone abortions without his knowledge or having lodged a false complaint against him. She further denied that she had agreed to join him at Narsipudi village on his securing employment near his native place or that she had refused to join him at Rajahmundry.

5. The appellant-wife, also a