The persistent initiation of false, reckless, and unsubstantiated criminal allegations against a spouse, combined with a total lack of trust and a prolonged, acrimonious separation, constitutes grave mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the marital bond even where irretrievable breakdown is not a standalone statutory ground.

JUDGMENT

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955¹1 HMA, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2022²2 Impugned Judgement passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi³3 Family Court, in HMA No. 93/2014 (renumbered as HMA No. 49220/2016), titled as ‘Shri Sanjay Sharma vs. Ms. Anupama Sharma‘.

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondent-Husband and, having found cruelty proved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, granted a decree of divorce in his favour, thereby dissolving the marriage as against the Appellant-Wife. At the same time, the Court rejected the Respondent-Husband’s plea of desertion as devoid of merit.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The marriage between the Appellant-Wife and the Respondent-Husband was solemnized on 21.11.1997 at Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. From this union, a male child, Tushar, was born on 28.08.1998.

4. Following the marriage, the parties initially resided in Shamli. According to the Respondent, the Appellant was quarrelsome, suspicious, and frequently involved in disputes both within the family and at her workplace, which led to estrangement from his parents and ultimately necessitated a relocation to Delhi.

5. The Appellant, on the other hand, contends that she was subjected to continuous dowry demands, ill-treatment, and neglect. She alleges that she was forcibly turned out of the matrimonial home during her pregnancy in 1998, following which her mother paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Respondent to establish a clinic in Delhi.

6. The Appellant further alleges that the demands for money continued after the family moved to Delhi, including a demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- by her father-in-law and a requirement to contribute Rs. 3,00,000/- for her sister-in-law‘s marriage in 2003.

7. On 08.07.2012, the Respondent lodged a complaint at Police Station⁴4 PS - Seemapuri, Delhi, alleging that the Appellant was abusive, suspicious, and violent. He claimed that the Appellant insulted him, expelled him from the home, and seized his bike keys, registration certificate and mobile phone. He further alleged that her conduct caused the closure of his clinic in April-2012, estrangement from his parents, and mental distress, and he sought police protection.

8. On 18.07.2012, the Appellant filed a complaint at PS - Seemapuri, Delhi, alleging that she had seen the Respondent in a rickshaw with another woman, namely, Sarita, who claimed to be pregnant with his child, constituting harassment and infidelity.

9. On 21.04.2013, the Appellant lodged FIR⁵5 Frist Information Report No. 217/2013 at PS - Seemapuri, under Sections 498A and 323 of the IPC⁶6 Indian Penal Code, alleging that the Respondent had left her after taking her jewellery, was in an illicit relationship with a woman named Ms. Snehlata, and had assaulted her when confronted. A medical