ASHA SONI Vs. RAM SWARUP SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the 'act') by the wife against a divorce decree in favour of the husband.

(2.) IT was not disputed that the appellant and the respondent were married to each other on 19. 4. 1980 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals and that they were living Separately since 1. 2. 1983. The petitioner for divorce was filed by the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was alleged that so long the appellant lived with the respondent. She adopted an indifferent and disrespectful attitue towards the respondent and his family members, causing mental tension to them. Ultimately she deserted the respondent by voluntarily leaving the matrimonial home on 1. 2. 1983 in the company of her brother. She was also alleged to have taken away with her gold and silver ornaments, weighting about 22 tolas and 1 Kg. respectively. The appellant registered the petition by contending that she herself was haressed by the respondent and his parents as he did not bring dowry upto their exectation and her parents could not meet their dowry demands. It was further asserted that the respondent intended to bring a second wife and, therefore she was thron out of the matrimonial home by calling her brother to take her back. She also complained that she was not allowed to take away her ornaments, which were presented to her by her parents at the time of marriage, the Respondent was believed and a decree for divorce was granted in his favour by the Court below, which has resulted in filling of this appeal by the wife.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, find it difficult to support the impugned decree for divorce passed by the Court below, cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Act, but the term, 'cruelty' has not been defined. The accepted legal meaning of this expression has been conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or healthy (bodily or mental) or as to give rise to a resonable apprehension of such danger. It may be said that in order to constitute cruelty for the purpose of divorce, there must be such treatment of the petitioner which causes suffering in body or mind whether in realization or apprehension in such a way as to render cohabitation harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of each case, keeping always in view the character and condition of the parties, In this context, I find nothing on record to warrant a conclusion that the respondent was entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. In paragraph 8 of his deposition as A W. 1, the respondent Ram Swarup stated that the behaviours of the appellant was disrespectful. How it was disrespectful, he, tried to explain by saying that the appellant refused to work by saying that she was not a maid servant and that she threatened to leave the matrimonial home, if she was asked to work. According to his father Hariram Soni (A. M. 3 ). The relations became strained, because the respondent refused to take the appellant to her parents, as the wife of his elder brother had undergone operation. In paragraph 4 of bis deposition, he said that the behaviour of the appellant was good for a period of about one month (from the date of marriage, but thereafter, it became indecent. How the behaviour' became indecent was not explained by furnishing necessary details of relevant facts, which might have provided basis for forming an opinion about legal cruelty justifying a decree for divorce. The respondent was, therefore, not entitled to any decree for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment.