UMESH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. SHASHI TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -husband feels aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11 -2 -91 passed by Shri P.N. Parashar, Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 343 -A/90 dismissing his unit for dissolution of marriage and challenges legality and validity thereof in this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) THAT the parties are legally married husband and wife does not seem to be in dispute. That they are living separately at present is also not in dispute. The appellant plaintiff alleged that the respondent wife has left his home on 22 -2 -89 without his permission and has refused to come back. He further alleged that during the period they lived together, the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty. He therefore claimed divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent wife denied all allegations made against her in the plaint and submitted that she had been ever willing end is still willing to go back to the appellant and live with him. The learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties found nothing to hold that the behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant was cruel, justifying a decree on the ground of cruelty. Similarly, the learned Judge further held that no case of desertion is made out. It is this judgment and decree that is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant however advanced serious submissions based on cruelty of (he respondent and challenged the correctness of the decree. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court finds no substance in the submissions. Evidence of the appellant, Umesh Kumar Tiwari even if accepted, is not enough to inter/cruelty by the respondent. In para 5 of nil evidence he had stated that on 20 -2 -89 there was some altercation in his house in his absence for which the respondent had apologized to his father and thereafter lived happily with him. In Para 6 of his deposition, he has alleged that on 22 -2 -89, the respondent had quarreled with his mother in his absence and left the house with an intention not to return. He has further alleged that after 3 days when he went to bring her back, her father treated him with cruelty. This evidence, even if accepted, would not, in the opinion of this Court, justify an inference of cruelty by the respondent. Cruelty in law does not mean normal stress and strain or wear and tear of married life of two persons coming together to live as husband and wife. Certain normal wear and tear has to be accepted as a part of life and efforts made to rough them out. Little patience is perhaps needed for this purpose. May be, the parties can obtain help of their near relations and rough them out. But this strain of life, in the opinion of this Court, does not justify an inference of cruelty by the respondent. Learned trial Judge has considered the entire evidence in greater details and since the evidence of other witnesses is only in support of the evidence of the appellant, this Court is not considering the same in detail. This Court however agrees with the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Judge in this behalf.