Kanwar Bhan v. Babli Rani

Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has vehemently argued that learned Family Court has wrongly held that allegations contained in the divorce petition were general and vague in nature, especially when the appellant-husband had given specific instances of cruelty and desertion. It is further submitted that through specific narration of the dates, it was pleaded by the appellant in the divorce petition that there was continuous interference of the parents of the respondent-wife in their matrimonial life and she had been under their influence, but the learned Family Court, has erroneously held that the appellant-husband was not able to prove said fact.

Still further, it is argued that regarding the short temperament and creating of the nuisance, the findings recorded by learned Family Court, suffer from fallacy as the acts and conduct pleaded in the petition clearly indicated such behaviour and conduct on the part of the respondentwife. Still further, it is argued that learned Family Court has erred in law in not taking into consideration that the remaining away from the company of the appellant-husband and denying him access to the matrimonial bliss also amounted to cruelty. It is also argued that the respondent-wife had alleged illicit relations of the appellant-husband with one Sneha, but she could not prove the same.

that once allegation regarding character castration had been levelled by the respondent-wife and she was unable to prove the same, it amounted to mental cruelty to the appellant-husband. Still further, it is argued that the finding of learned Family Court that allegations regarding illicit relations between the appellant-husband and aforesaid Sneha was an uneasy act, but the same did not amount to cruelty, is also misplaced. It is lastly argued that it was proved on record that the parties had been living separately since 31.10.2012, but the said fact has been ignored by learned Family Court, while holding that the appellant-husband had failed to prove desertion. 11.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentwife, while defending the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court has argued that the findings recorded by learned Family Court are based on evidence on record. It is further submitted that mere allegations would not amount to cruelty unless the same are substantiated by way of evidence. It is yet further argued that having failed to prove grounds of cruelty or desertion, the appellant-husband cannot be heard saying that findings recorded by learned Family Court are liable to be set aside.

18.

If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it would come out that the parties, who have been living separately since 31.10.2012, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie and it would show scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. This, in itself would amount to mental cruelty to both the parties. We are further of the opinion that long gap in the marital communication only leads to the bitterness to the relationship.