The High Court dismissed and appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-husband (respondent herein) for dissolution of marriage was decreed.

The marriage of Rajesh Gaur (plaintiff-respondent) was solemnized with Anita Gaur (defendant-appellant) as per Hindu customs and ceremonies on 12-05-1999 after which they shifted to Mumbai where the plaintiff-respondent was running his business. Two children were also born out of wedlock. On 3-06-2014, husband (plaintiff-respondent) instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife (defendant-appellant) seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. He had alleged that about five years ago there was a sudden change in the behavior of his wife and the valuable articles, jewellery, cash, etc. started missing from the house. Further, he alleged that 2-3 years thereafter, he had started receiving telephone calls of crooked persons asking him either to return the money else he would be abducted. On being asked the plaintiff-respondent confessed to him that she had borrowed money on interest @ 10 percent per month and she also had purchased ornaments and clothes on credit. After getting continuous threats of abduction and capture of his flat the defendant-appellant fearing for his life and liberty decided to come back to Dehradun along with his wife; thereafter a Panchayat was held in the village in which the defendant-appellant admitted her mistakes in writing but even after that quarrels and scenes had become common on several occasions and it was impossible for the plaintiff-respondent to continue to live with the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant however in the written statement denied the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent but admitted borrowing money amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 for household expenses, payment of school fees, etc. She also submitted that she was being badly harassed by the plaintiff-respondent; and that she made a complaint in the Women Cell and also lodged a case under Section 494, Penal code, 1860 against him. After examining the evidence the court decreed the suit for divorce holding that the reasons stated for instituting the suit and the acts alleged by the plaintiff against his wife qualified to come under the category of cruelty.

The Court while dismissing the appeal affirmed the order of the Family Court explaining that the word “cruelty’ was not defined under the Act and it could be physical or mental. The Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court like in Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706, where it was held that “Mental cruelty cannot be established by direct evidence and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case.” In Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194 the Court had held that “cruelty can never be defined with exactitude.’ The Court also stated that the plaintiff-respondent failed to substantiate the allegations which she had made against the plaintiff-respondent. The Court consequently held that:

“All these acts and conduct, in our considered view, constitute cruelty. Further, as is evident, it was not a solitary instance of cruelty on the part of the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant indulged in repeated acts of cruelty and misbehavior with her husband.