B.M.Shyam Prasad, J. - This appeal is filed by the husband, whose petition for divorce in M.C.No.3042 of 2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru (for short, the Family Court) is dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.06.2016. The Family Court has dismissed the said petition in M.C.No.3042 of 2014 holding that the appellant has failed to prove that he was treated cruelly by his wife, the respondent.

2. The appellants marriage with the respondent was solemnized in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh on 02.03.2012 and registered under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short, the H.M. Act) on 03.07.2012 in Bengaluru. The appellant and respondent established their matrimonial home in Bengaluru, and resided together there until March 2013. The appellant filed the above petition for divorce in the year 2014 alleging cruelty by the respondent.

3. The appellants case could be thus stated:

The appellant is a graduate in Business Management and the respondent is a graduate in Engineering. The appellant was not informed that the respondent suffers from hereditary disorder known as Thalassemia until just a few days before the marriage. But, the appellant was neither chagrined nor perturbed and in fact, the appellant and the respondent were happily married for about four months. But, the respondents conduct worsened gradually. The respondent started getting very aggressive with the appellant, and she would be quick to pick up quarrels even if the appellant requested her to attend to some household chores. The respondent ridiculed the appellant and his family members because of their financial status, and they were also ridiculed because they evinced keen interest in general reading.

4. The respondent increasingly became disinterested in matrimonial intimacy and household work. The appellant had to take care of not only the expenses of running the household, but also had to attend to shopping for groceries and every other household chores. The respondent abused the appellants brother and sister-in-law when they tried to counsel both the appellant and the respondent. The respondents parents were also not helpful. The appellant was put to severe mental agony by the turn of events brought about by the respondents conduct. The respondent left the matrimonial home in the month of March 2013 despite the appellant repeatedly requesting her not to walk out of the matrimony. The appellant and the respondent corresponded over emails between April 2013 and August 2013, and even met once to discuss settlement. But, the respondent relocated to the United States of America.

5. The respondent, after re-locating to the United States of America has become totally incommunicado. The respondent and her family members have refused even to share with the appellant the respondents contact address. The appellants efforts to contact the respondent through her mother have also been futile. The respondents refusal to communicate with the appellant, or his family members, after she relocated to the United States of America, is typical of her stubborn behaviour even during the time that she stayed with the appellant. The matrimony is frustrated, and the appellant is put to insufferable harassment and torture.

6. The Family Court issued notice of the petition to the respondent. The notice was served on the respondents mother at her address in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The mother wrote back to the Family Court on 02.08.2014, stating that the respondent was not residing in Jabalpur and she was residing in the United States. Therefore, notice cannot be served on the respondent through her. Further, an Advocate, Dr.Anurag Srivastava wrote on behalf of the respondents mother to the Family Court stating that the mother is neither the agent of the respondent nor was she empowered to receive the notice on behalf of the respondent. In the light of this communication, the Family Court placed the respondent ex parte. However, when the petition was listed for arguments on main petition, the Family Court vide its order dated 29.01.2015 directed the appellant to take fresh steps for service of notice to the respondent at her correct address.

7. The appellant impugned this order dated 29.01.2015 in a writ petition in W.P.No.32618 of 2015, and the writ Court vide its order dated 25.08.2015, permitted the appellant to file an application before the Family Court for substituted service through email. The appellants application for substituted service was allowed. The notice of the petition was again caused to the respondent via her email address. But, the respondent did not respond. Therefore, the respondent was again placed ex parte. Thereafter, the appellant was heard, and the appellants petition is dismissed by the impugned order.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Family Court could not have dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant had not made out a case of unbearable conduct and the circumstances relied upon by the appellant only bespeak of a normal wear and tear in a matrimonial relationship. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the Family Court had to consider the respondents entire conduct, including the respondents conduct in walking out of the matrimonial home and relocating aboard without even information to the appellant about her whereabouts. The learned Counsel submitted that this Court should consider the facts and circumstances as stated by the appellant in his evidence and the circumstances in which the respondent has stone walled every effort to ensure service of notice of the petition. These circumstances establish the respondents disinterest in, and abandonment of, matrimony and this cannot be called wear and tear normal in a spousal relationship. As such, a case for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H. M. Act has been made out.

9. Therefore, the questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the Family Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in dismissing the appellants petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 as being founded in complaints about normal wear and tear usual in a matrimonial relationship, and

(b) Whether the appellant has made out a case for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

10. The appellants evidence is that the respondent and her parents had practiced deceit in bringing about the marriage alliance without disclosing that the respondent suffered from a certain hereditary disorder. But this did not hinder the appellant in hoping for a happy married life, and in fact, the appellant and respondent lived happily for about four-five months. However, the appellant suffered increasing agony because the respondent turned adamant and started humiliating and harassing the appellant and his family members. The appellants parents and his brother/his family were also humiliated when they tried to intervene to bring about harmony in the relationship. The respondents parents were encouraging her. The appellant was feeling isolated and hapless.

11. The respondent abruptly walked out of the matrimonial home. The appellant tried to keep in touch with the respondent over email. The appellant and the respondent, with their family members, even met once thereafter. But, to no avail. Thereafter, the respondent became absolutely inaccessible so much so that the appellant is not even aware of where she is and what she does.

12. The appellants evidence is uncontroverted, and the indubitable facts that emerge from the appellants uncontroverted evidence are that the appellant and respondent were married in the month of March 2012 and they lived together in matrimony in Bengaluru until March 2013. Thereafter, they lived separately. The respondent has relocated to the United States of America. The appellant is not aware of her whereabouts even after all these years.

13. Further, the appellant has tried to ensure that intimation of the petition is served on the respondent through her mother, who has corresponded with the Family Court at the first instance, and later even with this Court, stating that her daughter has relocated to the United States of America. The respondent is no longer residing with her, and the respondent has not executed any power of attorney, nor otherwise authorized her, to receive any communication on her behalf. The respondent has also not responded to the emails sent from the office of the family Court and the office of this Court as well.

14. The Honble Apex Court in Ramachander v. Ananda, (2015) 11 SCC 539 [LQ/SC/2015/269] has held as follows:

"The expression cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case (supra), this Court set out illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty can be drawn and they are only illustrative and not exhaustive".

Of course, it would also serve well to simultaneously mention that oft repeated caution that marriages cannot be dissolved because of frailties of rudeness or petulance or indifference.

15. The indubitable circumstances show that the appellant, who married the respondent in the month of March 2012, could live with her only for a period of one year, and thereafter they lived separately until August 2014 when the respondent relocated to the United States of America. The appellant was not informed about her relocation and the respondent has remained incommunicado. Further, these circumstances also lend credence to the appellants case that the respondent was disinterested in matrimony even during the period that the appellant and the respondent stayed together. When these circumstances are considered cumulatively, it would be rather undeniable that the respondent by her conduct has disrupted the matrimonial life completely. Neither the respondents conduct nor the resultant mental trauma for the appellant could be construed as normal in a matrimonial relationship. In the facts and circumstances, the appellants mental agony can be fairly and reasonably inferred. In the considered opinion of this Court, the family Court has erred in concluding that the appellants petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the H. M. Act is founded in normal wear and tear of a relationship. Therefore, the Family Courts judgement is not reasonable. As such, the appeal deserves to be accepted setting aside the impugned judgment and decree with the appellants petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 being allowed. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 02.06.2016 in M.C.No.3042 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru is set aside. The appellants petition in M.C.No.3042 of 2014 is allowed and the appellants marriage with the respondent solemnized on 02.03.2012 at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, is dissolved.

The office to draw decree accordingly.