R.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31.03.2000 passed by the Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act' for short).
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married on 25.11.1996 according to the Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock, a daughter was born to respondent-wife. However, according to the appellant while he was posted outside, the respondent left the matrimonial home. Prior to leaving the matrimonial home she threatened the in-laws that she would implicate them in false case. Upon his return, he managed to convince her to come back to the matrimonial home. But, a year later, on 17.01.1998 she left the matrimonial home permanently. During this period of two years of marriage, the appellant claimed, that the respondent has never fulfilled her responsibilities both as a wife and as a daughter-in- law. Initially, she pressurized him to leave his parents and to take another house. She also insisted that although he is posted in the Central Reserve Police Force (henceforth to be referred to as 'the CRPF' for short), he should still take her to the place of his posting. But, because of Government Rules, he was not in a position to take her to the place of his posting. Instead of understanding his difficulties, she would publicly abuse him and would raise hue and cry in the neighbourhood. Because she would publicly fight with him and would gather the people around her, the appellant felt ashamed of her behaviour. On 26.01.1997, she not only called him names in front of the neighbours, but also physically assaulted him. She threatened that she will commit suicide and will involve the entire family of her in-laws. Between 08.03.1997 and 05.04.1997 when the appellant's friends were over at his house, she called him names in front of them which caused him social embarrassment. On 01.04.1997 she accused the appellant of having illicit relationship with other woman. This too caused mental agony to the appellant. Things went from bad to worse when she started accusing her younger brother-in-law (Dewar) of having wrong intentions about her. In order to improve the relationship, the appellant took her to Srinagar, where he was posted, but the things did not improve their either. He came back to Ajmer on 23.11.97 alongwith her. But her endless fights and tensions continued till 17.01.1998 when she left the matrimonial home. Since the appellant could no longer tolerate her cruelties, on 25.07.1998 he filed the petition for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court. Instead of submitting her reply to the divorce petition, on 5.11.98 the respondent lodged a criminal complaint against the husband and his brother for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 325 of IPC. On 13.11.1998 i.e. seven days after lodging the criminal complaint she lodged a report against the husband and his family for offences under Sections 406, 354 and 498-A IPC. It was only on 06.01.1999 that she submitted her reply to the divorce petition. In order to substantiate his case the appellant examined three witnesses including himself, in order to support her case, the respondent examined eight witnesses including herself. After hearing both the parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 31.03.2000, as stated above, the learned Family Court dismissed the application for divorce. Hence this appeal before this Court. Mr. Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, has narrated the factual matrix as stated above. He has vehemently argued that the constant fights, the constant cursing, the constant tension, created by the respondent does not fall merely under the category of "natural wear and tear" of married life. For, personally the appellant has been assaulted and abused, socially he has been embarrassed, and the family has been neglected and abused by the respondent. These acts certainly tentamount to "mental cruelty" committed by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members. He has further pointed out that in the criminal case for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 the appellant and his brother have been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 03.08.2002. In the criminal case for offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 354 IPC the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 406 IPC, his brother under Section 354 IPC and his father under Section 498-A IPC vide judgment dated 26.06.2003. However, vide order dated 20.09.2003 the appellate court has acquitted all of them for their respective offences. He has also conceded that a Criminal Revision is pending against the judgment dated 20.09.2003 before this Court. Lastly, he has argued that the husband and wife have been staying apart from each other for the last nine years. Thus, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is writ large in the case. Hence marriage should be dissolved. In order to support his contentions he has relied upon the cases of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 309 : ((2005)2 SCC 22), Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 290 : ((2006)4 SCC 558) and Anagalla Padamlatha v. A. Sudershan Rao, 2000(2) Andhra Law Times 15 (DB).
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has validly concluded that the respondent did not cause any cruelty towards the appellant. In fact, her acts and omission merely tentamount to frictions which existed in normal married life. Hence, he has supported the impugned judgment.;