The main legal point established is that deliberate desertion and deprivation of conjugal rights by one spouse can constitute grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion.

JUDGEMENT

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka in HMA No.2836/2018, whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

2. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnised on 08.12.2008 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. One female child was born from this wedlock on 25.11.2014.

3. The appellant, in the present case, has averred that since inception of their marriage, the respondent’s behaviour was not good towards him. The respondent never trusted the appellant, who was earning less salary than her.

The appellant has alleged that the respondent knowingly concealed the factum of her pregnancy and when the appellant enquired from her that since 25.03.2014 till 04.04.2014, i.e. the day when she left her matrimonial home, why she did not disclose the appellant about her pregnancy; she did not give any satisfactory reply. Further alleged that on 22.03.2014, the respondent had demanded Rs.10 lacs from the appellant to divorce him and she deliberately left his company on 04.04.2014 by deserting him and since then, she has been residing with her parents.

4. The appellant, in his petition filed before the learned Family Court, averred that the conduct of the respondent towards him and his family members was inhuman and she did not co-operate with them despite that he loved her and provided her with all the facilities as per his income and financial capacity.

5. The appellant narrated that he alongwith the respondent used to live on the ground floor of the house and his two brothers with their families and mother lived on the first floor. After his elder brother shifted to another accommodation in March, 2009, the respondent started pressurising the appellant to live separately and to have a separate kitchen, at the instigation of her parents. The mother of the appellant happily agreed and separated their kitchen in the year 2009.

6. According to the appellant, his mother started living with them on the ground floor after sometime. However, the respondent did not like her staying with them and she started misbehaving, quarrelling and abusing with the appellant and his mother. The appellant’s mother was forced to call the respondent’s parents to tell her to mend her behaviour. However, the parents of the respondent threatened her of dire consequences by stating “tu janti ha na ki mein kon hu or m kya kr skti hu, m home ministry m kam karti hu, m kuch bhi kar skti hu isliy agar tu shanti s rahna chahti h to jo meri beti kh rhi h whi kr nhi to tera jina mushkil kr dungi”. The respondent pressurised the appellant to throw his mother out of the house.

7. The appellant averred that on 09.05.2010, he lost his job and due to continuous taunts of the respondent, the appellant vacated the ground floor and started living on the third floor of the house separately with his mother.

However, the respondent’s behaviour did not change and the respondent quarrelled on the pretext that she wanted to live on the ground floor only.

The appellant has alleged that the respondent’s misbehaviour was to the extent of spitting on the face of his mother and also once, she slapped his mother on her face.

8. The appellant alleged that under the pressure of her parents, the respondent forced him to buy a separate accommodation at some place away from his mother’s house and the appellant booked a flat in the society meant for the persons working in Home Ministry, as the respondent was working there. The appellant claims to have transferred an amount of Rs.4 lacs to the account of the respondent towards purchase of the said property.

9. The appellant has alleged that on 02.01.2014, the r