- (1.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on the 11th September, 1980. The wife is said to have left the matrimonial home on 11th June, 1981. A son out of the wedlock was born on 26th December, 1981. A petition for divorce was filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 (1) (1a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 24th february, 1986 allowed the petition and granted the divorce on both the grounds. That was, however, reversed in-appeal by the District judge, Pondicherry, by judgment and decree dated 23rd January, 1987 and petition for divorce was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the husband having been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 1997, this appeal has been filed by the wife.
(2.) For this appeal, the ground of desertion is not relevant That was the around which was negatived by the District Judge and is not ground on which the second appeal was allowed by the High Court and decree for divorce granted in favour of the husband. The only ground relevant for the purposes of decision of this appeal is that of cruelty.
(3.) The facts constituting cruelty as pleaded in the divorce petition were briefly that the wife was not freely moving with the husband and his family member; she was leading secluded life; her father and mother used to visit husband's house frequently and other similar facts. These facts have, however, become irrelevant now since the High Court has not reversed the judgment and decree of the First Appellate court by coming to the conclusion that the aforesaid facts as held by the Trial Court constitute cruelty and findings of Trial Court were wrongly reversed by the District Judge. The high Court by impugned judgment passed in the Second Appeal has granted the decree of divorce by coming to the conclusion that the unfounded allegations made by the wife constitutes mental cruelty. The High Court says : "The wife has alleged so many serious allegations against the husband and mother-in-law both in the counter and in the evidence, she has not established the same by examining any independent witness. To prove that the husband demanded some more articles from her father, the wife has not examined her father to sustain the same. The above said unfounded allegations cannot but constitute mental cruelty. Despite all these, if the wife wants to live with her husband/appellant, it has to be concluded that she has resolved to live in agony and only to make the life miserable one. According to the husband, in his evidence he has categorically stated that he does not want to live with the respondent/wife. In view of the above, it is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together or living together again. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has submitted that in view of the petty quarrels between the spouses, it cannot be said that reunion is not possible. In view of the allegations made against the husband and her mother-in-law taking into consideration of the totality of the facts, it cannot be said that the dispute is due to petty quarrels and so the submission of the learned counsel cannot be sustained. ";