The court reinforced that specific, credible evidence is essential in divorce claims based on cruelty and desertion.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25-04-2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No.53 - A / 2011, by which, appellant's / plaintiff's application for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion has been rejected.

2. The appellant filed a suit seeking decree of divorce on the pleadings inter alia that after marriage of the parties, which was solemnized on 17-04-2009, though initially the respondent - wife lived peacefully, but later on, she started quarrelling with his parents and also subjected them to cruelty. It was further pleaded that the respondent - wife used to visit her parental house frequently without informing anyone and used to come back to matrimonial house only after great persuasion. Further pleading was that on the issue of visiting parental house, the respondent - wife used to assault by calling her parents and threatened the appellant and his family members to falsely implicate in a dowry case. It was also pleaded that the respondent was insisting the appellant to live separately from his parents which gave rise to dispute between the parties. On 08-02-2010, the respondent went to her parental house by stating that she is willing to appear in the academic examination and thereafter, she did not return, despite all efforts made. The dispute was taken to the platform of their community, where despite advise, the respondent - wife did not come back to her matrimonial house. Then, the appellant moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and in these proceedings also, the respondent - wife stated that after delivery, she would come back to her matrimonial house, but she never returned. It was also alleged that the respondent deprived the appellant of marital co - habitation and on such pleadings of cruelty and desertion, a decree of divorce was sought.

3. The respondent - wife, in her written statement, while denying all the allegations of cruelty, stated that the appellant and his family members, subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of money and also on the ground that proper gifts were not given at the time of marriage. It was also alleged that her husband was inclined to go for second marriage and he was no longer interested in the respondent. It was also alleged that she had suffered abortion while she was residing in the matrimonial house. She also pleaded that every time, when advise was given to the parties to reside together, the appellant used to insist her to give in writing that if something goes wrong, the husband and his family members should not be held as responsible. Later on, an application for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn as the appellant was no longer interested to keep respondent - wife with him. Finally, the suit was filed before the learned Family Court seeking decree of divorce.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed two issues, as under: -

(Vernacular matter omitted....Ed.)

5. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined five witnesses. In reply, the defendant examined four witnesses. Learned Family Court, after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in the backdrop of pleadings of the parties, found that case of cruelty is not made out. On the issue of desertion, learned Family Court found that the suit itself was premature.

6. Assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Family Court committed gross error of law and fact both in dismissing the application for seeking decree of divorce, though the appellant had proved cruelty through proper pleadings and clinching evidence.