Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That the respondent used to remain frigid and cold in his physical interaction and intimacy with the respondent ends with one sided. The petitioner had unilaterally physical interaction and intercourse with the respondent, only 5 or 6 times during their eight months of marital life.

5. On 23.12.2006, petitioner wanted to celebrate the first anniversary engagement day by going out for lunch together and invited the respondent for Temple in the morning and lunch in the afternoon for which the respondent did not co-operate and went to her duty, because of which the petitioner turned into frustration, bitter, sour and disappointed.

9. R.W.2 in his evidence, clearly stated that he has no objection to bring medical records of the respondent to the Court and he has no objection to send the respondent for medical examination, but the petitioner failed to take steps to bring the medical records or to send her to medical examination.

10. The trial Court observed that petitioner and respondent lived together for 1 ½ year after the marriage and petitioner filed divorce petition on flimsy and baseless grounds and failed to establish the ground of cruelty. The separation between them is only for six or seven months that too on flimsy grounds. Therefore, the marital tie cannot be broken down and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the present appeal and mainly contended that respondent has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights, as such she is not decided to cohabit with him. Both of them are highly educated and employed, there is no physical or mental bonding between them. Respondent did not cooperate with him in spite of his best efforts. Marriage did not work due to frigid and unwilling attitude of the respondent, she maintained distance from him. The trial Court failed to consider the principles laid down in the citations filed by him. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

15. There are certain misunderstandings between the couple. No doubt, the relationship between them was strained, but the Court cannot grant divorce on that ground, it must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. It is quite but common that trivial irritations and quarrels between the couples happen in day to day marriage life, but the petitioner magnified the same. Facts of each case differs, both of them lived together only for 1 ½ year and they were not blessed with children. In the initial days of marriage, there will be difference of opinion between the couple and it is for them to sit and sort out the same, but the petitioner and respondent failed to do so. Petitioner went to an extent of filing a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and also went to an extent of making allegation that she is suffering from mental disorder without any basis. The trial Court considering all the aspects, dismissed the application, but the parties are not residing together from September, 2007 onwards till today i.e., for the past 16 years. As contended by the petitioner, respondent also not filed any O.P for restitution of conjugal rights, but in her counter she stated that she is willing to stay along with him, but it seems that after filing the case, they never resided together and due to long gap between them, the matrimonial bond had been ruptured beyond repair. Any further effort to keep it alive would become counter-productive. The entire substratum of marriage had already disappeared. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both of them are educated and are working. There was no physical or verbal abuse between the couple. It is true that what is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value systems. Petitioner feels that respondent was frigid even during physical intercourse. There was no deceit, involves no dowry issue either at the time of marriage or subsequent to marriage or any other pressure of any nature, but he could not understand the attitude of the respondent and he ultimately thought that he cannot live with her and filed O.P for divorce. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by a decree of divorce.