Abhay Manohar Sapre JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are filed by the Appellant (wife) against the final judgment and order dated 23.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 108 of 2013 and F.A.O. No. 109 of 2013 by which the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellant and confirmed the judgment dated 14.12.2010 of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini which had granted decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the Respondent (husband) and, in consequence, also affirmed the order dismissing the petition filed by the Appellant (wife) for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. Facts, in brief, to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeals need mention infra.
3. The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnized on 26.02.1999 at Delhi as per the Hindu rites. The Respondent-husband is working as "Caretaker" in the Government of NCT of Delhi whereas the Appellant is a housewife. Out of this wedlock, one daughter was born on 15.06.2002 and the second daughter was born on 10.02.2006. Both daughters are living with the Appellant.
4. On 11.07.2010, the Respondent (husband) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") in the Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi against the Appellant (wife). The Respondent sought decree for dissolution of marriage essentially on the ground of "cruelty".
5. In substance, the Respondent, in his petition, pleaded 9 instances which, according to him, constituted "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the Appellant.
6. The first ground of cruelty was related to wife's behavior on the next day of marriage, i.e., 27.02.1999. It was alleged that the Appellant came out of the bedroom in night dress and that too late when the close relatives of the Respondent were sitting in the house. It was alleged that she did not pay respect and wishes to the elders. (Para 9 of the plaint)
7. The second ground of cruelty was again about the Appellant's behavior with the Respondent on the eve of New Year. However, the year was not mentioned. According to the Respondent, he agreed to celebrate the new year with the Appellant on her parental house as the parents of the Appellant gave repeated calls. After reaching her parental house, most of the time the Appellant was busy with her family members and left him alone in the drawing room. Even at the time of dinner, the family members of the Appellant did not behave properly. (Para 10).
8. The third ground of cruelty was that the Appellant did not show any inclination or enthusiasm to attend any important family function or festivals at the Respondent's house whenever held. However, no details were given about the date and the function held. The allegations are general in nature (Para 11).
9. The ........