The court established that mental cruelty, including neglect and harassment, is sufficient grounds for dissolving a marriage under Muslim law.

JUDGMENT :

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

1. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , against the decree and order dated 09.11.2023 passed in FCOP No.745 of 2020 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Additional Family Court, Vijayawada.

2. Petition in FCOP No.745 of 2020 was filed under Section 2 (ii) (iv) & (viii) (a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 with a prayer to dissolve the marriage of the appellant/petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband dt.12.02.2012 and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of neglect, desertion and cruelty. The petition was dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned orders.

Case of the petitioner/wife:-

4. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that –

[i] Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 12.02.2012, as per Islam, Shariat rules and caste customs of Sunni Sect. Meher (dower) amount was fixed to the tune of 8 sovereigns of gold in Nikkanama, apart from the property admeasuring 200 sq.yards, in the name of the petitioner by way of gift on her name, the petitioner and the respondent had lead happy marital life for a short span. Due to the harassment and cruelty of the respondent towards the petitioner, the petitioner started living separately from 02.09.2017. There are no children born in wed lock. The incidents of cruelty and harassment, as per the petitioner are:

a) She was asked to transfer the property in the name of the respondent.

b) Parents of the respondent instead of pacifying and advising the respondent properly, supported him.

c) Brother of the respondent added chorus to the demands of the respondent.

d) Respondent used to snatch away salary and other emoluments of the petitioner.

[ii] When things were unbearable, petitioner lodged a report vide Crime No.554 of 2019 in terms of Section 498-A IPC and she has moved an application for her maintenance vide FCOP(M.C.) No.407 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Court, Vijayawada.

[iii] The marital society of the petitioner with the respondent proved to be hazardous to her life and limb. There are no chances of reunion. Hence, she is constrained to file a petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

Case of the respondent/ husband:-

5. Case of the respondent, in brief, is that –

[i] Petition allegations are false. In fact, the petitioner is not interested to lead matrimonial life with the respondent-husband. She foisted a case with false allegations vide Crime No.554 of 2019 pending in the form of C.C.No.4284 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Similarly a maintenance case is initiated with false allegations. Whereas the respondent-husband has filed an application for Restitution of conjugal rights in F.C.O.P.No.1176 of 2019, which was ended in ex parte decree in his favour and wife filed application to set aside the same but she did not pursue the same.

[ii] The petitioner/wife is not interested to lead matrimonial life and decree may be passed on the condition that the petitioner/wife has to withdraw the maintenance case and also simultaneously withdraw criminal case foisted by her for the offence under Section 498-A IPC covered by C.C.No.4284 of 2020.

6. During the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner/wife, office copy of notices, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and reply-Ex.P9 and original Memorandum of Understanding- Ex.P10 were got marked apart from other formal documents in proof of marriage. On behalf of the respondent/hus