The court established that mental cruelty, including unfounded allegations, constitutes valid grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

11 th August 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The husband has challenged the judgment in Matrimonial Suit No.380 of 2010 by filing this First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act , 1984.

2. Matrimonial Suit No.380 of 2010 was instituted by Usha Roy (hereinafter referred as the respondent) under section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 for a decree of divorce by dissolution of the marriage solemnized with the appellant on 10 th March 2004. The respondent pleaded that after the marriage which was solemnized at Kargali in the district of Bokaro she started conjugal life with her husband in the matrimonial home and her marriage was duly consummated. According to the respondent, at the time of marriage her father was compelled to give Rs.2 Lacs in cash, gold ornaments worth Rs.55,000/- and cloths worth Rs.10,000/- to the family of the appellant. She has alleged that the expenses for reception of “barat party” was also borne by her parents who paid Rupees One Lac. However, the appellant and his family were not satisfied and they demanded more dowry and in connection therewith started torturing the respondent. She has made allegations of mental and physical cruelty including physical assaults upon her by the appellant at the instigation of his family members and, that, her husband has written vulgar letters to her. Finally, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home on 13 th March 2004. She has further alleged that seriously concerned with her miseries in the matrimonial home, her mother also approached various authorities, and after some time her father brought her back in the matrimonial home on 4 th October 2004, but just few days thereafter, her husband brutally assaulted her and she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 12 th December 2004. In the Court, the respondent has given narration of various incidents regarding her torture upon her including the assaults on 4 th July 2005 and 14 th July 2005, when her husband and his family members tried to set her on fire but with intervention of the neighbours her life could be saved.

3. The appellant contested the divorce suit by filing a written statement denying the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment and torture of the respondent by him or by his family members. He has also narrated few incidents particularly the incident which took place on 25 th birthday of his wife in which his wife expressed her disliking for him. Disappointed, he came to his workplace at Katni while his wife stayed at Ranchi on the pretext of work. He made a statement in his written statement that his wife stayed in the matrimonial home till the month of 2005 and during this period he was regularly and atleast fortnightly visiting her at Ranchi. He has further asserted that in early 2005 when his wife was suffering from malaria and typhoid he took leave for nursing of his wife. This is the case set up by the appellant that his wife left the matrimonial home as per her plans, took away all her belongings, and transferred all money in the bank at Ranchi in which he had also made substantial contributions. He deposed in the Court that he made several serious attempts to bring his wife back home to live in his company but she lodged a false criminal case vide C/1 Case No.43 of 2009 and started making complaints to various women organizations. She did not agree for any settlement before Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority at Ranchi and, on the other hand, filed a maintenance case vide Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 2009. An objection on maintainability of the divorce suit was also taken on the ground that section 9 petition vide Matrimonial Suit No.41 of 2009 has been decreed for restitution of the conjugal rights and while so, the suit for divorce was not maintainable.

4. During the trial of the divorce suit, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and, in her support, her father Nathun Roy has examined himself as PW2 and she has laid in evidence a copy of th