SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant wife in this appeal impugns the decree for divorce dated May 12, 2006 of learned Family Court Ajmer whereby the petition of respondent husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') was allowed, marital ties were snapped and it was indicated that the appellant wife was guilty of cruelty.
(2.) AS per the averments made in the petition the marriage between the appellant wife (or short `wife') and respondent husband (for short `husband') took place on December 2, 1999. After honeymoon at Mount Abu till December 23, 1999 the wife went with husband to Sagar (MP) where the husband was deployed as Lieutenant and wife stayed there till February, 2000. Thereafter the wife became pregnant and left Sagar for Bhilwara with her brother and mother against the will of husband. In April, 2000 the husband came on leave and took the wife to Ajmer where both resided together till May 6, 2000. After the husband left Ajmer for joining his duty leaving the wife with the parents of husband, the wife started behaving in a strange manner. She never used to cover her head with sari, started sitting in Varandah only in Peticoat-blouse and used to talk in filthy lanaguage. On May 30, 2000 the wife beat mother of husband and threatened the parents of husband to implicate them in a false case. She compelled her father in law to leave her to Bhilwara with two FDRs of Rs. 50]000/- each of March 9, 2001. The husband telephoned her and made a request to come Ajmer from Bhilwara but she defied the request and used abusive language. She caused mental agony to husband by making complaints to the Superior Officers of husband about the behaviour and character of husband. At sagar also the behaviour of wife was cruel. She used to defy the directions of husband. AS and when the friends of husband visited his house, the wife refused to serve tea and snacks to them. She used to threaten the husband that she would commit suicide and implicate husband in false cases. The husband and his parents made solemn endeavours to live with the wife in a peaceful manners but their all efforts were in vein. In reply to the petition the wife denied the allegations levelled against her. It was pleaded by her that she never quarrelled with family members of the husband. She stated that she was very sincere towards her husband and in-laws. Being highly qualified she was inspired by her in-laws to take RAS Examination and in pursuance to the inspirations of her in-laws and with the consent of her husband she had gone to Bhilwara for RAS Examinations. She was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and her signatures were obtained on a blank stamp paper regarding which complaint was sent to Army Officers. Complaints were sent by wife under compelling circumstances. The husband and his parents treated her cruelly. The husband never made any attempt to keep her with him. The husband demanded a dowry of Rs. 1 lac along with Maruti Car. On June 3, 2001 through telephone the husband intimated her to perform other marriage in case of not fulfilling the demand. The wife was always inclined to maintain conjugal relations with the husband but he was not inclined to remain with her. Learned Family Court framed as many as four issues out of the pleadings of the parties thus:- (i) Whether the behaviour of wife can be termed cruel with her husband as per the facts stated in the petition? (ii) Whether the behaviour of husband and his parents was cruel with the wife as per the facts stated in the reply? (iii) Whether the husband was entitled to decree dissolution of marriage solemnised on December 2, 1999? (iv) Relief? The respondent husband examined himself as AW. 1 and in support of his evidence produced Chandra Kala (AW. 2) and Jagdish Prasad Dadhich (AW. 3 ). The appellant wife appeared as Naw. 1 and examined Om Prakash Sharma (Naw. 2), Yogesh Kumar Joshi (Naw. 3) and Sidarth Singh Hada (Naw. 4 ). Learned Family Court decided all the issues against appellant wife and granted decree of divorce in favour of respondent husband as indicated above.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record. The question that requires consideration is whether the allegations made by the respondent husband do constitute cruelty. Clause (1a) of Section 13 of the Act specifies cruelty as one of the grounds of divorce. In so far as relevant Section 13 reads thus:- `` (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after commencement of the Act may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- (ia) has after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty. '' Cruelty may be physical as well as mental. ``mental Cruelty'' cannot be defined exhaustively. Lord Reid in Collins vs. Gollins (1964 AC 644) observed as under:- ``no one has ever attempted to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty and I do not intend/try to do so. Much must depend on the knowledge and intention of the respondent on the nature of his (or her) conduct, and on the character and physical or mental weakness of the spouses, and probably no general statement is equally applicable in all cases except the requirements that the party seeking relief must show actual or probable injury to life, limb or health. '' ;