D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the order dated 18-9-1989 of the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sehore refusing to grant a decree of divorce on the alleged ground of cruelty. The case of the wife, in brief, was that the husband used to physically assault the wife and ill-treat her. A specific case of physical assault pleaded was that the husband caused injury on the head of the wife with a sickle and chain.
2. The husband opposed the petition for divorce denying the alleged acts of cruelty on his part. His case was that they lived a happy married life for more than ten years but they had no issues. The husband alleged that the wife deserted the house of the husband and left matrimonial home along with her uncle.
3. On the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the trial Court by the judgment under appeal reached the finding against the wife and held that the alleged acts of cruelty were neither proved nor they were trustworthy. The petition for divorce filed by the wife was, therefore, dismissed.
4. Learned counsel Ku. Sandhya Shroti appearing for the wife made strenuous efforts before me in this appeal that the conduct of the parties is such that the case of the wife of cruelty is liable to be believed and marriage tie deserves to be broken. She argued that merely because the incident of mar-peet was neither reported to the relations nor to the police was not a good ground for the trial Court to reject the case of the wife.
5. The husband is not represented in this Court through any counsel. Notices were sent !o him through special post cards on several dates but he failed to appear. The last special post card was issued on 27-8-90 but the respondent failed to appear. The appeal was, therefore, heard in the absence of the husband.
6. -I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the appellant and have also perused the oral testimony led by the parties in support of their pleas. The wife, who has examined herself as P.W. 1 clearly admitted that they lived as husband and wife for a long period of 7 to 8 years. She, however, stated that for all these long years she was not given proper food and clothing. Her case is that prior to 1-1/2 years of the date of her deposition on 1st of August 89 the husband had inflicted injuries on her head with the sickle. In her cross-examination a discrepancy was pointed out with regard to the happening of the above incident in Para 5 of the petition for divorce wherein portion A to A the incident of mar-peet resulting in injuries on her head with sickle are said to have occurred about two months back from the date of filing of the petition on 13-6-88. The above statement in para 5 of her petition for divorce contradiets her Oral testimony in para 2 of the incident having taken place 14 years back.
7. I find sufficient justification in the finding of the trial Court that this was a material discrepancy rendering her story of mar-peet with a sickle as unbelievable. The other circumstance which renders her story of causing a serious injury to her by the husband is also unbelievable because she did not take any medical treatment and did not report the incident even to her nearest relations.
8. The wife had also examined in support of her case, her father Heera examined as PW 2 and her uncle Urjan examined as PW 3. Her father Heera (PW 2) in his statement stated that the incident of mar-peet was narrated by the wife to him 15 or 20 days after she came back to her parents house along with her uncle Urjan (PW 3). Heera (PW 2) also stated that he had made a report to the police station Ashta but no records have been produced. In para 6 of his deposition he denied the suggestion that he wanted to get her daughter remarried and had gone with that purpose to village Semlibadi. In para 7 he admitted that he had advised his daughter to live with the husband but she declined.
9. The statement of Urjan (PW 3), uncle of the wife, also does not fully support her story. In para 2 of his deposition Urjan admitted that he did not see any mark of injury on her head when he had gone to bring her to the parental home. He admitted that he has no personal knowledge of any ill-treatment having been meted out by the husband to the wife.
10. The husband/respondent on his part examined himself and two other supporting witnesses only to prove that the wife left the matrimonial home along with her uncle on her own free will and never returned.
11. It is true that after amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act and introduction of Section 13(i-a), 'cruelty' furnishes a ground for divorce and it is not necessary that the cruelty should be of a degree as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. After the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, (No. 68 of 1976) cruelty, both either physical, or mental, furnishes a good ground for grant of a decree of divorce. In any case even after the amendment to Section 13 by introduction of Section 13(i-a) the 'cruelty' for furnishing a good ground of divorce should be of a degree where the treatment of the petitioner is such by the other party that it causes suffering on body or mind whether on realisation 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 of the character and condition of the parties, their status, environment and social values as also the customs and traditions governing them. (See Hindu Law by Mulla, 15th Edition Page 782).
12. Understanding thus the word 'cruelty' as used in Section 13(i-a) of the Act, in the present case it cannot be said that the wife has been able to establish any such cruelty as to entitle her to a decree of divorce. I confirm the finding of the trial Court that the act of physical assault alleged by the wife against the husband has not been convincingly proved even by preponderance of probabilities. The wife and the husband have lived for a long period of more than ten years. There are no other allegations of cruel treatment except some vague allegations of not giving proper food and clothing. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial Court that the wife willingly left the matrimonial home and is herself guilty of desertion. The wife being the defaulting party in the present case the decree of divorce was rightly refused to her.
13. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.