Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Respondent became pregnant during this period. However, respondent was not happy with pregnancy as she was not interested having a child at this stage and asking appellant and his family to send her parents house. Appellant and his family members tried to keep her in their house and they were also under impression that if she was send to her parent's house, she will make effort to get the child abort. Due to this fact, the behaviour of respondent with appellant and his family members became more cruel and hostile and she started querelling with appellant as well as other family members and in order to cause physical and mental cruelty, respondent started using abusive language against them and when appellant and his family members tried to talk to the parents of respondent regarding her misbehaviour and conduct instead of giving any advice to respondent, parents of respondents encouraged the respondent. They also pressurized the appellant to send the respondent to her parents house. In order to keep peace, appellant send respondent to her parent's house on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and respondent left the house of appellant and took all jewellery and cash alongwith with her.

Even after return to house of appellant, she refuse to cohabit with appellant and also used abusive language against appellant and his family members.

After sometime, respondent again left house of appellant and gone to her parent's house and also lodged a forged complaint against appellant and his family members. The appellant's family suffered a lot due to above illegal act of respondent. All these acts of respondent caused mental and physical cruelty of the appellant, which totally ruined life of appellant. Hence, appellant left with no option but to file the suit of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

5. It is further contended that it is false that respondent refused to come to house of appellant. On the contrary, at the time of marriage of both brothers of appellant, respondent attended both marriages. It was appellant who took her back to his house. The behaviour of appellant against respondent was so cruel that he mentally and physically tortured respondent and on several occasions, she was assaulted by appellant. In the said assault, she sustained fracture in spinal bone and when she informed about this assault to her parents, appellant again tried to pressurize the respondent not to proceed further against this assault. All the allegations regarding abusive language used by respondent are false. She never used abusive language against husband as well as his family members. Respondent with full devotion and sincerity tried to save her married life and taken all steps to protect her marriage life. However, appellant and his family members tried to disturb marriage life of appellant and respondent in order to perform second marriage and to obtain further heavy dowry.

22. It is true that both the parties have alleged factum of cruelty with each other. On one part, appellant submitted that it was the respondent who treated him and his family members badly and used abusive language against them, which caused mental cruelty. Appellant further submitted that respondent refused to cohabit with him and also filed several false complaints against appellant, which also caused mental cruelty to appellant. Appellant has also alleged that conduct of respondent with family members of appellant and other guests was not cordial. She always refused to prepare tea for guest and in fact insulted the guests of family who came to visit. On the basis of these allegations, appellant tried to establish the factum of mental cruelty. All these facts were denied by respondent. On the contrary, respondent stated that it was the appellant, who treated respondent with cruelty by asking for more dowry and when family members of respondent failed to fulfil illegal demand of dowry of appellant, respondent was forced to leave the house. Respondent further alleged; when she was thrown out from house without cloths, she was forced to file petition before Family Judge for restraining him to perform second marriage and again she was forced to lodge maintenance suit as well as complaint against misbehaviour of appellant with police authorities. Thus, the stand of respondent that it was the appellant, whose behaviour against her was cruel appears to be correct.