ANIL KUMAR BHUTANI Vs. MANYA BHUTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband has assailed the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Family Court, whereby his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the HMA"), was dismissed.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the parties had got married at Delhi on 11.10.2000, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and two children, namely, Aniket and Kavya were born from out of this wedlock. In the petition for divorce, the husband has alleged that the marriage was a simple one; no dowry was given or accepted in the marriage or at any time after the marriage and the respondent/wife was treated with love, affection and respect in the matrimonial home by him and his family member. She, however, misbehaved grossly and abused him and his family members without any rhyme or reason. The respondent did not allow the marriage to be consummated for about ten days due to her cold behaviour. On the day of their Suhagrat, she disclosed to the appellant that she was in love with someone else and was not interested in marrying him, but was forced into the marriage. As a good husband, the appellant had asked her to forget the past and start a new life as his legally wedded wife. Throughout her stay, the respondent/wife was constantly fighting and abusing the appellant and his family members with filthy language, kept calling them names which had caused mental cruelty to him and his family members. This had also affected his career and health.

(3.) The appellant claimed that the respondent did not perform the duties of a devoted Hindu wife and as she refused to do the household chores, his family member, had to do all the household chores; she did not look after him during his illness and never even offered him a glass of water on his returning from work; she used to sarcastically state that he was incapable of giving her physical satisfaction. Her behaviour was motivated by her desire to live separately from the family members of the appellant and she used to go to her parents house quite frequently. The respondent also pressurized the appellant to have a separate accommodation which was not possible for him due to the expenses entailed and his limited resources. He made efforts to explain his financial constraints to her, but she just refused to understand anything. On every such occasion, the respondent used to abuse the appellant in front of his relatives and thus humiliated him. This caused acute mental torture and tension to him. On one occasion, when the mother of appellant/husband had fallen ill and was not in a position to even stand, he had asked the respondent to take care of his father and to prepare the meals for the family members, but she had straightaway refused and started fighting with him. The respondent used to threaten the appellant that she would go to her parental home and would agree to stay in the matrimonial home only on the condition that she would not be asked to do any household chores.