Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a significant factor despite being unsanctioned under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the non - applicant / wife (Smt. Sarita Tamrakar) under S.19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth 'the Act, 1984') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 11-2-2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in civil suit No.150 - A / 2014 whereby the learned trial Court has granted a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on the grounds enumerated under S.13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth 'the HM Act') (for the sake of brevity, the parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 22-6-1988 and out of their wedlock, two children namely; Sourabh and Bhagyashree were born on 10-1-1990 and 1-1 - 1995, respectively. According to the applicant / husband (Sudhir Tamrakar), immediately after the marriage, the non - applicant / wife has started quarreling with him and lodged the false report for offence under S.498 - A read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'the IPC') as well as for the offence under S.3 and S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act, 1961') and has also lodged a false report as per the provisions enumerated under S.17, S.18 and S.19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth 'the DV Act'). It is contended further that on account of the false report, the applicant and his father were in detention for five days whereas his mother was in detention for one day. It is, therefore, contended by the applicant that the wife (non - applicant) is behaving with him in a cruel manner and pleaded further that since July, 1998 his wife has deserted him and they are living separately. The applicant / husband is, therefore, praying for dissolution of marriage on the grounds as mentioned hereinabove.

3. While denying the aforesaid contention of the applicant / husband, it is pleaded by the non - applicant / wife that she has never committed any kind of cruelty with her husband and when she was subjected to cruelty by him and his parents, the alleged reports were lodged.
It is contended further that she never deserted him and only on the false ground the claim has been made. Thus, the application filed by the husband deserves to be rejected.

4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the non - applicant / wife has not only committed cruelty with her husband but has deserted him and that by considering further that since both the couple are residing separately since a long period, the decree for dissolution of marriage has accordingly been passed under S.13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HM Act.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned counsel appearing for the non - applicant / wife would submit that the findings recorded by the trial Court are not at all sustainable in the eyes of law as without considering the evidence in its true perspective the decree of divorce has been passed.

6. Perusal of the record would show that a report was lodged by the non - applicant / wife for the offence punishable under S.498 - A read with S.34 of the IPC as well as for offence under S.3 and S.4 of the Act, 1961 against her husband and in - laws. The same was registered as Criminal Case No.391/13 and vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-8-2013 (Ex.D / 4), the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, acquitted them for offence under S.3 of the Act, 1961, however, they have been convicted under S.498 - A read with S.34 of the IPC and for the offence under S.4 of the