JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by dismissal of her petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, petitioner has come up with this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Family Court. 3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 24.02.2006 at Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. It was an arranged marriage. Before her engagement with the respondent, the petitioner was still prosecuting her studies and therefore, she attempted to communicate about her future plans to the respondent that she was not interested to marry till she settles in her career. However, respondent assured that he would cooperate with the petitioner for the completion of her Ph.D course for a duration of five years. Therefore, reluctantly the petitioner agreed for the marriage. After the marriage, petitioner came back to Bengaluru to continue her Ph.D and on this account their marriage was not consummated. Respondent also returned to Bengaluru in connection with his employment. He used to visit the petitioner in her campus. 4. Subsequently, he started insisting that she should join him at his residence. As she had not completed her Ph.D course she was not agreeable to the said proposition. Therefore, she was avoiding the respondent. Without understanding the situation, respondent started insulting and abusing the petitioner and used to cast allegations against her parents. He went on harassing the petitioner and also threatened to commit suicide on the ground that their marriage is not consummated. He harassed her physically and mentally. He used to say that she is useless and used to humiliate the petitioner. He used to call the father of the petitioner and threaten him. During Janauary 2007, petitioner’s father died due to a heart attack. The lewd remarks made by the respondent and insults to the petitioner, it created a tense atmosphere in the family of the petitioner. Her family members were also defamed. In this background, it is averred that the conduct of the respondent threatened the life of petitioner. The conciliation proceedings also ended in failure. 5. On 01.11.2007 respondent has sent legal notice to the petitioner to join him. Her family members were also defamed. In this background, it is averred that the conduct of the respondent threatened the life of petitioner. The conciliation proceedings also ended in failure. 5. On 01.11.2007 respondent has sent legal notice to the petitioner to join him. Petitioner also approached Mahila Dakshitha Samithi, a family counseling Centre, Bengaluru. Inspite of receiving notice, respondent did not turn up for conciliation. On the other hand, he filed O.P.No.40/2008 before the Family Court, Hyderabad for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner refused to join the respondent since she is yet to complete her Ph.D. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is seeking dissolution of marriage. 6. In the statement of objections, respondent has admitted the relationship between the parties. However, he has alleged that the petitioner is adamant, rude and egoistic and he has tolerated the same for a long time. His parents expected from the petitioner that in addition to pursuing her studies, the petitioner would also lead a happy married life. He is ready to co-operate with the petitioner till her completion of Ph.D. by staying with her. The filing of O.P.No.40/2008 seeking restitution of conjugal rights was admitted. However, he has denied that respondent has inflicted the cruelty to the petitioner and insulted her. 7. It is contended that the petitioner did not heed the advise of her father, family members as well as elders in the family and that the Family Court, Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute and has sought for dismissal of the petition. 8. During the enquiry, petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 9. Respondent has not led any evidence on his behalf, but through the cross-examination has got marked Ex.R1 and 2. 9. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012, the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty by the respondent. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The conduct of respondent amounts to infliction of mental cruelty. The Family Court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has jumped to an erroneous conclusion that no ground for cruelty is made out. The conduct of respondent amounts to infliction of mental cruelty. The Family Court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has jumped to an erroneous conclusion that no ground for cruelty is made out. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that prior to the marriage, petitioner has shared her views regarding her future family that emotional and intellectual intimacy of the spouse is essential rather than physical intimacy and the respondent has consented for the same. 11. The Family Court has not appreciated the fact that respondent abused and insulted the petitioner for non consummation of marriage and he went to the extent of threatening to commit suicide. The Family Court has not considered the averments of the petition and evidence of the petitioner with regard to the fact that the respondent did not hesitate to defame the petitioner in public places and cause fear in her mind. She had no one to support her and respondent went to the extent of threatening her by issuing legal notice. 12. As a result of which petitioner would have to face consequences which caused mental cruelty to her and degraded her status in social circle. When petitioner is pursuing Ph.D, which is of five years duration, the issue of legal notice by the respondent calling upon her to join him at Hyderabad by leaving her studies would amount to cruelty and this fact is not appreciated by the Family Court. As a Ph.D student petitioner was required to spend 15-16 hours a day in her research. Such being the case, it was impossible for her to join the respondent. Inspite of all these, the conduct of respondent in insisting upon the petitioner to join him amounts to cruelty and the aforesaid fact is not appreciated by the Family Court. The Family Court has also not appreciated the fact that even the family members of respondent were insisting upon the petitioner to consent for physical relationship with respondent at the cost of her education and it certainly amounts to cruelty. However, the Family Court without appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner in its proper perspective, has only concentrated on the fact that petitioner has not consented for consummation of marriage and on that ground rejected the petition and the same requires interference by this Court. 13. However, the Family Court without appreciating the evidence led by the petitioner in its proper perspective, has only concentrated on the fact that petitioner has not consented for consummation of marriage and on that ground rejected the petition and the same requires interference by this Court. 13. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: i) AIR 2006 SC 16751 (Naveen Kohli's case), Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli. ii) (2005) 7 SCC 3532 (Tripathy's case), Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy. 14. Heard arguments and perused the record. 15. From the material placed on record, it is evident that before her marriage, petitioner was pursuing her Ph.D in Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, which an is institute of eminence. Admission to the said institution is only available to meritorious student. It is the definite case of the petitioner that she was reluctant to marry respondent and in fact she expressed the same to respondent that unless and until she completes her Ph.D, she is not ready for marriage. Only on the assurance of the respondent that he would co-operate and wait till she completes her Ph.D before they could begin their marital life she consented to the marriage. Therefore, it is evident that her parents were desperate to see her settle in life and only on the assurance of respondent, she consented for marriage. 16. Petitioner has alleged that however after the marriage, respondent changed his version and started insisting upon her to agree for consummation of marriage and on her refusal for the same, he started abusing and humiliating her and also her family members and her family members were not able to bare with the said humiliation. Ultimately, her father died due to heart attack. 17. During the course of her evidence, petitioner has deposed that because of her busy schedule in her research work, she could not join the respondent in his matrimonial home. However, she made all efforts to attend the festivals at the matrimonial home at Hyderabad. Before his family members, respondent would act and create an impression with the family members of the petitioner as though he was in very good terms with the petitioner, but while interacting with the petitioner, he was blaming and abusing her for not consummating the marriage. He was harassing and threatening that he would commit suicide making her solely responsible for the dire consequences. He was harassing and threatening that he would commit suicide making her solely responsible for the dire consequences. He was also stating that petitioner was a women of bad character and that she was useless. Because of this petitioner was feeling great shame and suffering from mental agony. Despite knowing that her father is suffering from heart ailment, respondent used to call the father of the petitioner and speak to him hours together on the same issue and that he would not spare him for marrying the petitioner to the respondent. Unable to bare with the humiliation, ultimately her father died due to heart attack. 18. When the insistence of the respondent increased, without any other alternative, petitioner has poured her heart out in an e-mail dated 08.01.2006 at E.P5 wherein she has implored the respondent. She has specifically stated that though her parents were desperate to get her married, at the same time they were looking for an alliance with a person who is settled in Bengaluru so that she should not discontinue her Ph.D and the person should be able to co-operate with her. She has stated that only after he agreed that they would postpone their marital life till she completes the Ph.D, she consented for the marriage. She has also stated that if he gets an opportunity to go abroad in the period during which she is pursuing her Ph.D, she has no objection for the same. She has also stated that it was her dream to join Indian Institute of Science and having regard to the amount of effort and trauma she has underwent to have admission, she is very serious about pursuing the same. She has also stated that on the other hand, respondent is of the opinion that they should have kids at the right time so that they can see them settle in life, but she cannot afford to have kids for years during the course of her stay in the Institute. She has pleaded that after completing her Ph.D, she is ready to carry on with her matrimonial life and having kids and raising them. She has also stated that if he was very particular about having kids immediately after the marriage, he could have opted for some other alliance rather than marrying her. She has pleaded that after completing her Ph.D, she is ready to carry on with her matrimonial life and having kids and raising them. She has also stated that if he was very particular about having kids immediately after the marriage, he could have opted for some other alliance rather than marrying her. Only on his assurance, she consented for the marriage and now at this crucial stage, he cannot go back on his words. 19. It is pertinent to note that respondent has neither admitted the fact that he had consented for allowing the petitioner to complete her Ph.D before they could start their matrimonial life. He has also not disputed the said fact. However, he has chosen to issue a legal notice dated 17.11.2007 calling upon her to join him at Hyderabad and lead a marital life. However, in the said legal notice, he has admitted that petitioner has postponed the consummation of marriage on the ground that she was not mentally prepared for it and requested the respondent to wait till she completes the Ph.D. In the legal notice, respondent has insisted that the Hindu marriage system creates an obligation on the part of the wife to be with the husband under one roof in his home respecting his feelings and ideas about the matrimonial life and therefore, she should come and join him. 20. After receiving the legal notice, petitioner has approached the Mahila Dakshatha Samithi for conciliation and in fact as per Ex.P6, the said family counselor has issued a notice dated 05.12.2007 to the respondent to appear for conciliation. It is duly served on him as per Ex.P7. However, respondent has not chosen to appear for counseling. On the other hand, he has chosen to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It appears he has not pursued the same. 21. In this background, petitioner was forced to approach the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is pertinent to note that respondent has not chosen to step into the witness box and answer the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the mental cruelty attributed to him. 21. In this background, petitioner was forced to approach the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is pertinent to note that respondent has not chosen to step into the witness box and answer the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the mental cruelty attributed to him. In spite of petitioner being cross-examined at length on several occasions, fact remains that the simple request of petitioner was to let her finish the Ph.D before they could start living together as husband and wife and lead a marital life is rejected by the petitioner. 22. However, throughout right from the date of marriage, he is insisting upon the petitioner to consent for consummation of marriage without appreciating her predicament that she would not be able to concentrate on her studies if she is indulged in other responsibilities. However, the Family Court has not appreciated the point of view of the petitioner and on the other hand, it has went on discussing that it is the petitioner who is at fault in not consenting for consummation of marriage and leading a marital life. 23. Having regard to the fact that petitioner was pursuing her Ph.D in Indian Institute of Science, which study requires most part of her time to be indulged in studies and research. As evident from Ex.R1, a student of Ph.D Degree is required to submit thesis within six years, failing which her registration would be cancelled. After cancellation of the registration, the student would be allowed to resume her Ph.D within a maximum period of two years from the date of cancellation. Having regard to these aspects and the state of mind in which the petitioner was placed and in her anxiety to complete the Ph.D, she was not able to concentrate towards her matrimonial life and consequently, she went on requesting the respondent to be considerate. However, despite agreeing to co-operate with her to complete her Ph.D, without having the responsibility of matrimonial life, respondent has reneged on his words and went on insisting upon to join him. 24. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this conduct of the respondent certainly amounts to cruelty. However, the Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect. 24. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this conduct of the respondent certainly amounts to cruelty. However, the Family Court has failed to appreciate this aspect. On the other hand, the Family Court has appreciated the evidence placed on record in the perspective of a traditional case of matrimonial dispute between the couples rather than appreciating the intellectual aspect of the petitioner’s case and held that she has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and thereby erred in rejecting the petition on the ground of cruelty. 25. In Naveen Kohli's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held that there is no acceptable way in which parties can be compelled to resume life with the consort and nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that is in fact has seized to exist. 26. In Tripathy's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that already 14 years have elapsed since appellant and respondent have been separated and there is no possibility of they resuming the normal marital life. 27. Having regard to the fact that the ground of cruelty is established and the parties are living separately since 2008, in the light of the proposition of law in the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion that no purpose would served by dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/wife seeking decree of divorce and forcing the petitioner and respondent to live together. In the result, the appeal succeeds and we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree is set aside. Consequently, petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner/wife is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent performed on 24.02.2006 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce. (iii) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment.