Pratibha Rani JUDGMENT
Pratibha Rani, J.
1. The appellant-wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated July 21, 2016 passed by learned Judge, Family Court in HMA Petition No. 289/2014 (Old No. 647/2012) whereby the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce.
2. The appellant-wife in this case is well qualified. She is M.Com, B.Ed. employed as Post Graduate Teacher in a reputed public school in Delhi. The respondent-husband is also well placed in a private company earning a decent salary. We shall hereinafter refer the parties as the 'wife' and the 'husband'.
3. It is admitted case of the parties that they got married on February 22, 2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple was blessed with a female child on December 08, 2004. Matrimonial discord started in the year 2005. Since at the matrimonial home the parents-in-law of the wife were also residing, the parties started living separately in a rented accommodation in close proximity to the matrimonial home. The wife left the rented accommodation in December, 2006. Litigations between the parties started in the year 2007 which was put to an end by them by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding on May 04, 2010. While condoning the acts attributed to each other, they decided to live together at Shakarpur in a premises owned by father of the wife. The parties lived together till October 01, 2012. Thereafter pursuant to the incident dated October 01, 2012, when police was also called by the wife, the husband left Shakarpur and returned to his parents' home in Shalimar Bagh. He also brought alongwith him the air conditioner, washing machine and other belongings which were purchased by him when the parties decided to live in Shakarpur in a separate accommodation in terms of settlement. Since the efforts by the parties to give another trial to their marriage failed, HMA Petition No. 647/2012 was filed by the husband in December, 2012 seeking dissolution of marriage.
4. The wife filed the written statement as well the counter claim seeking judicial separation. The learned Judge, Family Court proceeded to dispose of the HMA petition with reference to the acts of cruelty post MOU dated May 04, 2010. Therefore, we need not delve on various acts of cruelty alleged prior to MOU dated May 04, 2010.
5. The learned Judge Family Court had granted a decree of divorce on being satisfied that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the following reasons:--
"(i) The husband had been able to prove that he had been deprived of conjugal relationship by the wife. This was admitted by the wife during her cross examination.
(ii) Though the parties were living under one roof during the period May 04, 2010 to October 02, 2012, they were not living as husband and wife. The wife denied physical contact to her husband on the pretext of requiring more time to develop understanding between the two."
6. In matrimonial proceedings, the pleadings assume grave significance. In view of Section 20 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Court is empowered to act upon unfounded allegations in the pleadings treating the same as evidence.
7. We would like to extract Section 20 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as under:--
"20. Contents and verification of petitions.--
(1) Every petition presented under this Act shall stated as distinctly as the nature of the case permits the facts on which the claim to relief is founded [a........