S. Ananda Reddy, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.6.2000 made in O.P. No. 59 of 1996 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, allowing the O.P.
2. The appellant herein is the wife. The respondent filed the O.P. under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act) for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 15.5.1993 at Saidabad, Hyderabad. After the marriage both of them lived happily for sometime at Kallur of Khammam district and they were blessed with a male child. It is stated that two years prior to the filing of the O.P., the appellant became violent, eccentric. It is stated that with a view to bring a change in her, the respondent also put up a separate family in the same village, but his efforts were in vain and there was no change in the attitude of the appellant. It is stated, on the other hand, it has increased. It is stated that the violent behaviour of the appellant, both inside and outside the house, has become a source of impersonation to the respondent and the members of his family in the village. It is stated by the respondent that his family commands respect in the village. It is also stated that though he requested the appellant to consult a Doctor and offered her to a Doctor, but she refused to come and on the other hand threatened to commit suicide if she is taken to a Doctor. According to the respondent, this attitude of the appellant put him to great misery and mental cruelty. It is also stated that she has been visiting the school where he was working as a teacher and disturbing him and causing annoyance to the Head Master. The respondent further stated in the petition that the appellant is of a nagging type constantly insulting him even in the presence of his friends, servants and guests. The respondent further stated that the appellant insisted that he should have no relations with his parents, brothers and sisters. The respondent further stated that the appellant was never dutiful and obedient to him. He further stated that she used to leave the house periodically even without informing him of her whereabouts. The respondent further stated that he even tried to impress upon the parents of the appellant for treatment of her mental disorder and to control her violent mental imbalance but even they expressed their inability.
3. The respondent further stated in his application that the appellant left his house on 20.8.1996 without informing him and after waiting for a week and finding no information, he issued a legal notice to the respondent on 27.8.11886 to her father's address asking her to undergo thorough medical checkup and rectify her attitude, as otherwise, it has become practically impossible for him to live with her any longer and to continue marital relations. To the said notice, the appellant issued a reply on 9.9.1996 denying all the material allegations. In her reply she also stated that he is living an immoral life having illicit relationship with one Smt. Chakali Pullamma and in order to get rid of the appellant, he created all problems and blaming her. It is also stated in the said reply notice that the said Chakali Pullamma is a mother of two children and leading a respectable life by attending to various house in collecting clothes for ironing, including the house of the respondent. The respondent further stated in his application that he never beat or harassed her. He denied that the appellant tolerated any atrocities at his hands. He is also not aware of any complaint said to have been given by the appellant to the police. He also denied that he beat the appellant and necked her away from the house on 20.8.1996 along with her son and that on that count she took shelter in her parents house.
4. The respondent further stated in his application that apart from the embarrassment caused at the hands of the appellant for the last two years, the false allegations invented and made by her regarding his alleged illicit intimacy with Smt. Chakali Pullamma and that he is leading an immoral life with her are wild adding insult to the injury and it amounts to mental cruelty. The respondent further stated that, therefore, it has become difficult for him to live with the appellant. The respondent further stated that on account of her wild allegations involving Smt. Chakali Pullamma, the appellant caused problems even in the family of Smt. Chakali Pullamma. It is stated that the allegations made by the appellant in her reply notice caused serious mental agony to him and his parents. According to the respondent, all the above acts of the appellant constitute cruelty within the meaning of that term in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The respondent further stated that the marriage between them has broken down irretrievable and there is no chance of his living a marital life with her. Hence, the O.P.
5. The appellant-wife contested the above O.P. by filing a counter-affidavit denying and disputing the material allegations. It is stated that no wherein the petition, the respondent has cited a particular incident or incidents in which she behaved violently. It is also a stated that without knowing the meaning of Violent or violence', the respondent has used the said word in a casual manner. According to her, as the respondent developed illicit intimacy with Chakali Pullamma, he used to beat her. She further stated that in spite of the advice given by his parents not to spoil his life as well as the life of the appellant and her son, the respondent did not heed to their advice. She further stated that since they could not tolerate the conduct of the respondent, they advised her and her husband to have separate mess and residence and accordingly they lived at Kallur village where the respondent was working as a teacher. She further stated in her counter that since he became independent, his attitude further changed and he used to have intimacies with other ladies. She denied having threatened the respondent of committing suicide. She also stated that since she brought to the notice of conduct of the respondent to the parents and other relatives for an advice to him to stop illegal intimacies, the respondent made a false allegation that she is mentally disordered. She also denied having visited the school in which the respondent was working and. disturbed him. She also denied having insulted the respondent in the presence of others. She further stated that she is a dutiful Hindu wife. She denied having left the matrimonial house without information, She further denied that her parents expressed their inability about her alleged mental imbalance. According to her, the said allegations were made with a view to get rid of her and lead a carefree life with a woman of his choice.
6. The appellant further stated in her counter that she along with her minor son were necked out from the house on 20.8.1996 by the respondent without any reasonable cause or excuse and hence she had to take shelter in her parents' house. She stated that if really she came out of the house voluntarily on 20.8.1996, the respondent would have tried to know about her whereabouts and would have come to the house of her parents, but he did not do so and on the other hand issued a legal notice dated 27.8.1996. According to her, this itself shows that she was sent to her parents' house without any reason or excuse and to cover his laches he got issued the legal notice. The appellant further stated that she is ready and willing to join the respondent. She further stated that requesting the husband constantly to provide love and affection is not an offence or a sin and does not amount to cruelty, she further stated that she is an unemployed post-graduate lady knowing the implications of making false allegations. She finally stated that she is not willing to take divorce and prayed that the O.P. be dismissed.
7. Before the Court below, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and his friends as P.Ws. 2 to 6 and marked Exs. A-1 and A-2 on his behalf. The appellant examined herself as R.W. 1 and examined three other witnesses as R.Ws. 2 to 4 and no documents were marked on her behalf.
8. The Court below, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record and after hearing the learned Counsels for the parties held that the respondent was able to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion and accordingly allowed the O.P. granting a decree of divorce. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved wife.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the validity of the impugned order, submitted that the Court below failed to take into the totality of the circumstances and evidence placed before it and came to erroneous conclusions and hence the said order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel further submitted that the witnesses examined by the respondent except speaking about the frequent quarrels between the appellant and the respondent, did not speak of or what caused the quarrel or who is responsible for the same. The learned Counsel further submitted that none of them spoke about the alleged cruel treatment meted out to the respondent by the appellant. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent except stating that the appellant used to behave violently, that she is suffering from mental disorder or imbalance, did not produce any satisfactory evidence, either oral or documentary and in absence of such evidence, the Court below committed a serious error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is able to prove the ground of cruelty for dissolution of the marriage. The learned Counsel contended that the Court below did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and misdirected itself to the facts of the case and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It was contended that as there is some basis for raising the ground of illegal intimacy of the respondent with one Chakali Pullamma, the same cannot be taken as a ground for holding against the appellant-wife. The learned. Counsel for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka Court in K.R. Manjunath v. Smt. Venna, I (1999) DMC 525=AIR 1999 Kar. 64 (D.B.), wherein under the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Court held that the conduct of the wife in quarrelling with the husband abusing him as he was having illicit intimacy with the neighbour cannot be construed that the wife subjected the husband to any sort of mental cruelty as defined under Section 13(1) of the Act so as to entitle him to divorce on that ground. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paras Ram v. Kamlesh, AIR 1982 P & H 60 (D.B.), for the proposition that mere allegation of adultery made against a spouse in defence in a written statement does not by itself amount to cruelty and the petitioner must establish falsity of such allegation in order that it may constitute cruelty.
10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Court below, The learned Counsel contended that the Court below, after considering the evidence on record gave a categorical finding in favour of the respondent and granted a decree of divorce and hence it cannot be interfered with. The learned Counsel also contended that the evidence clearly shows that the appellant used to abuse the respondent and quarrel with him at the residence apart from going to his workplace and causing disturbance as well as annoyance to him as well as to the Head Master by making representation. According to the learned Counsel, the evidence on record also shows that the appellant made reckless and baseless allegations alleging that the respondent had illicit intimacy with one Chakali Pullamma, which was not proved and these allegations are sufficient to hold that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellant. The learned Counsel also referred to the findings of the Court below and contended that the Court below after considering the evidence on record gave categorical findings as to the cruel treatment of the appellant and, therefore, the said findings do not call for interference, In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jayakrishna Panigrahi v. Smt. Surekha Panigrahi, : AIR1996AP19 (D.B.), a decision of the Supreme Court in Vijayakumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijayakumar Bhate, III (2003) SLT 227=I (2003) DMC 685 (SC)=2003 (3) ALD 124 (SC), and a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Chintala Venkata Satyanarayana Rao v. Smt. Chintala Syamala, 2003 (2) L.S. 5 (D.B.), for the proposition that wild allegations imputing adulterous conduct on the part of the husband without any basis would constitute mental cruelty. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the order under appeal does not call for any interference.
11. For the above rival contentions, the issue to be considered in this appeal whether the finding of the Court below that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the appellant wife and consequential grant of divorce is sustainable or not?
12. The respondent-husband filed the O.P. seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds specified in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act alleging that he was subjected to cruel treatment by the appellant. It is stated by him that after the marriage they lived happily for some time, but two years prior to the filing of the O.P. the appellant used to ill treat and abuse him. It is his case that the appellant 'has become herself to outbursts of violence, eccentricities and abuses irrespective of the surroundings' and though he tried to change her behaviour, his efforts failed. It is also his case that, therefore, he set up a separate mess and residence in the family house at Kallur village, but there was no change in the conduct of the appellant and 'there has been an increase to the worst day-by-day'. The respondent also stated in the petition that the appellant used to visit the school where he was working and used to disturb him causing annoyance to the Headmaster. According to him, though he requested the respondent to consult a Doctor and offered to take her to the Doctor, she refused to co-operate and even threatened to commit suicide. The respondent also stated that the appellant made reckless and baseless allegations against him that he was leading an immoral life and having illicit intimacy with one Chakali Pullamma who used to stay in his house which amounts to mental cruelty and, therefore, he was constrained to file the O.P.
13. In support of the above contentions, the respondent as P.W. 1 has stated that the appellant lived with him pleasantly for one year after the marriage and thereafter started harassing him. His evidence also goes to show that when he felt that the appellant was mentally disordered and intended to take her to a Doctor, the appellant refused and threatened to commit suicide. He further stated in his evidence that the appellant visited the school where he was working many times and requested the Headmaster to pay his salary to her. More than that, there was no reference as to the behaviour of the appellant-wife at his workplace. He also stated that the appellant entertained a suspicion that he was having illicit contracts with other ladies, particularly with Chakali Pullamma. It is his further evidence that out of the wedlock a son was born to them and he was aged 5 years at the time of giving evidence. In the cross-examination, P.W. 1 admitted that he did not mention the names of the persons in Ex. A-1 notice who have witnessed the incidents that took place between them. He, however, denied the suggestion that the appellant never visited the school and demanded the Headmaster to pay his salary to her. He also denied that he was harassing the appellant by beating and abusing her and, therefore, she left the house.
14. P.W. 2, said to be the classmate of P.W. 1 and who is also working as a teacher deposed that now and then he used to visit the house of P.W. 1 and on one occasion though he was offered tea, it was not served and at that time he heard a quarrel between the appellant and the respondent. He further stated that the appellant was always quarrelling with the respondent, that the parents of the respondent were also present at the time when the parties were quarrelling. He further deposed that though he advised them not to quarrel, neither of them honoured his advice. In the cross-examination, he stated that he and P.W. 1 worked together in one institution for three years. According to him, he saw the appellant and the respondent quarrelling on three occasions and that there are houses near to the house of the respondent in the village and many other persons also collected and saw the incident of quarrelling, but he cannot name them as he was a stranger to the village. He also admits that the respondent is his good friend. This witness is not a resident of the village where the parties are residing and he is a resident of Siripuram, Madhira Mandal.
15. P.W. 3, another teacher in P.S. Lokaram village and who worked in Kallur High School along with P.W. 1 from 1982 to 1986 deposed that in the year 1995 when he was present in the office of Mandal Praja Parishad, the appellant and her father came there and filed a petition to stop the salary of the respondent and place him under suspension, that he advised them not to create havoc in the office and settle the matter outside the office amicably. However, in the cross-examination, P.W. 3 denied the suggestion that the appellant and her father did not visit the office of MPP and filed an application as stated by him. However, he stated in the further cross-examination that the application was oral and not in writing. In fact, it is not the case of the respondent that any such application was filed before the MPP.
16. P.W. 4, another classmate of P.W. 1 and who is working as Record Assistant in Khammam Degree College deposed that he originally hails from Kallur village, that once in a week he used to visit Kallur and whenever he visits his native place he used to go to the house of the respondent He further deposed that on eight or nine occasions, he found the appellant quarrelling with the respondent on silly grounds. He further stated that in the year 1994 in his presence the appellant left the house with her luggage after quarrelling with the respondent, according to him any amount of advice to the appellant to maintain harmony did not yield any good response. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has been living in Khammam for the last 10 years. According to him, when the appellant quarrelled with the respondent, the mother and sisters of the respondent were also present and the appellant also quarrelled with them. He denied the suggestion that the appellant never quarrelled with them. He denied the suggestion that the appellant never quarrelled with the respondent in his presence and she did not leave with her luggage. He also denied that he was deposing falsely as the respondent is his friend.
17. P.W. 5, the brother of P.W. 1 and who has been practising as an Advocate at Hyderabad, deposed that after one year of the marriage, the appellant started creating problems for the respondent, that in March, 1978 he shifted the parents to Hyderabad with an intention that the parties might live happily, but in spite of this the appellant did not maintain cordial terms with her husband. P.W. 5 further stated in his evidence that even in his presence the appellant quarrelled with the respondent on many occasions and dragged the family affairs on to the streets. In the cross-examination he stated that since 1979 he has been living in Hyderabad. It was suggested to him that he was not visiting Kallur and no incident of misbehaviour on the part of the appellant took place in his presence, which he denied.
18. P.W. 6, the neighbour of P.W. 1, deposed that as the parties were always quarrelling the parents of the respondent lived separately. According to him, on one day at mid night, on hearing hues and cries from the house of the respondent he went there and found the appellant abusing the respondent, when he intervened the appellant also abused him and later he went away. He further deposed that many neighbours also gathered there and witnessed the incident, In the cross-examination, it was suggested to him that he belongs to Kamma community whereas the parties belong to Brahmin community and they were living in different streets, which he denied. He stated that his house is situated on the eastern side of the respondent's house. He further stated that as long as the child is with the appellant, she is looking after its needs. He also stated that he does not know whether any neighbours knew about the disputes of the parties. He also stated that he does not know the name of the washer-woman of the respondent with whom it was alleged that the respondent was having illicit intimacy. He, however, stated that since 5 or 6 years that lady is working in the house of the respondent.
19. On the other hand, it is the evidence of the appellant as R.W. 1 that after she gave birth to a male child she went to the house of the respondent where she was ill-treated by the respondent by scolding and beating, since he developed illegal intimacy with the servant working in the house, by name, Chakali Pullamma. She further stated that when she questioned the respondent about the same in the presence of the said Chakali Pullamma, the respondent beat her and scolded her by ill-treating. Her evidence further goes to show that Chakali Pullamma used to wash the clothes as well as iron them and put them on the almirah for herself and when she questioned about the same, the respondent replied that she would do like that only. It is also her evidence that when the child was about three months old in the month of August, on a rainy day, the respondent, and others picked up a quarrel with her and beaten her and drove her away from the house. Therefore, she had to stay in the house of one milkman and on the next day her brother-in-law helped her to get into a bus to proceed to her parents' house at Warrangal. According to her, one week thereafter she received a legal notice from the respondent for which she also gave a reply through her Counsel. According to her, she never went to the school of the respondent and ill-treated him. In the cross-examination she stated that the family of the respondent are followers of tradition and custom, that she was not cooking food in the house. According to her, she was allowed to cook for madi and acharam. She denied having left the matrimonial house on 20.8.1996 without informing anybody. She denied that whenever P. Ws. 2 and 3 visited their house, she used to pick up quarrels with the respondent and they advised her not to quarrel with him. She, however, admitted that after filing of the O.P., her father went to the M.D.O. within whose jurisdiction the respondent is working and requested him not to pay the salary. However, he denied the suggestion that even before filing of the O.P. she along with her father went to the office of the M.D.O. and gave a petition not to give salary to the respondent. She further stated in the cross-examination that her mother-in-law advised her to live separately in a room in the house and cook food and live with him. She denied that she was not even cooking food for the respondent and he himself was cooking food and going to the school. She denied having threatened the respondent to commit suicide.
20. R.W. 2, another brother of the respondent herein, deposed that the parties lived happily for about three months and thereafter disputes arose between them. According to him, after the marriage, the respondent developed bad habits. He further stated that he developed illegal contacts and oral drinking. He also stated that the appellant was harassed in the family of the respondent. According to him, he also chastised the respondent to avoid illegal contacts, but he did not listen to his advice. He also stated that he came to know that the appellant left the house of the respondent due to harassment by him. In the cross-examination he admitted that there are property disputes between him and his brothers. He also admitted in the cross-examination that he does not have any personal knowledge about the quarrels between the parties.
21. R.W. 3, who is the sister-in-law of the respondent-husband, deposed that she personally witnessed the illegal intimacy between the respondent and one Chakali Pullamma whenever she visited his house once in 15 days or a month from Khammam. She further deposed that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant harassed her and sent her away from the house. She also deposed that several times she advised the respondent to change his behaviour towards the appellant, but he did not change and on the other hand questioned her intervention in the matter. She also deposed that the appellant lived with the respondent for an initial period of about three months and subsequently after the birth of the child disputes arose between them. In the cross-examination she deposed that she did not witness the incident of beating of the appellant by the mother-in-law and sister-in- law and the respondent since at that time she was in Khammam and she came to know about the same subsequently. She further deposed that the respondent is having drinking habit as well as having illicit intimacy with women. She categorically stated that Chakali Pullamma was working in the house of the respondent even prior to the marriage between the parties. She also stated that she did not know whether the said Chakali Pullamma is married or unmarried and that she was now and then going away to her house.
22. R.W. 4, a carpenter and a resident of Kallur, deposed that he was asked to prepare a cot and a dressing table by the respondent for his house, which he prepared. According to him the house of the respondent is situated at Venugopalaswamy street at Kallur town. He deposed that he prepared another cot and dressing table at the instance of the respondent for the use of Chakali Pullamma and they were delivered at her house. In the cross-examination, R.W. 4 deposed that he does not know where the house of said Chakali Pullamma is situated, whether she is married or unmarried and he does not know her husband's name. According to him, the respondent told him that he is getting the cot and dressing table prepared for the said Chakali Pullamma. He denied the suggestion that the respondent never asked him to prepare the articles for Chakali Pullamma and that he is deposing falsely by taking money from the appellant even though he is not a carpenter.
23. Basing on the above evidence of the parties, it has to be seen whether the appellant subjected the respondent to mental cruelty and hence he is entitled for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on that ground.
24. Before we proceed to examine the above question, let us first examine the legal position regarding the question, what is mental cruelty?
25. The change of law brought about by the Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 needs to be noticed in this regard. Prior to the said amendment, cruelty was not a ground for claiming divorce under the Act. It was a ground only for claiming judicial separation under Section 10. By the said Amendment Act, cruelty was made a ground for divorce as well, evidently in recognition of the changing modes of the society. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act, but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type, which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts, which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse, which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. 'Cruelty', therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. See for the proposition: Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, : [2002]1SCR50 . Further, the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the precise question, what is mental cruelty in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, : AIR1994SC710 . While dealing with the said question, the Supreme Court held:
'Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case and it is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.'
The Supreme Court further held therein that even where the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit dissolution of the marriage on that ground and that this circumstances may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty contemplated by Section 13(1)(ia). It is also well settled that the strict standard of proof for proving 'cruelty' as per the Evidence Act is not required and it is sufficient if the Judge trying the case is satisfied that a matrimonial offence has been committed.
26. In the background of the above settled legal position, it has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the respondent-husband is able to satisfactorily prove that he was subjected to mental cruelty by the appellant, that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the appellant and that they cannot live together.
27. The pleadings of the respondent-husband are to the effect that the appellant-wife was behaving violently visiting the school where he was working and disturbing him and causing annoyance to the Headmaster, that she was leaving the matrimonial house periodically without informing him, that she has also having mental imbalance and she made allegations against him that he was leading immoral life having illicit intimacy with one Chakali Pullamma. In the evidence, he deposed that the appellant was quarrelling with his parents, that she was mentally disordered, she was visiting the school and requiring the Headmaster to pay his salary to her, she entertained a suspicion that he was having illicit contacts with other ladies, particularly with Chakali Pullamma. He also stated that A-1 notice was issued one month after the appellant left his house whereas in the petition it was stated that it was issued after one week. The above evidence does not show that any serious allegations were made out by the respondent against the appellant-wife. The respondent did not even depose that the appellant caused disturbance in his employment, As far as requiring payment of salary by the appellant from the Headmaster of the school where the respondent was working, there is no other evidence, The Headmaster of the school was not examined. He also did not mention the names of the persons who witnessed the alleged incidents committed by the appellant. P.W. 2 who is the friend and who worked along with the respondent stated that he was offered tea, but it was not served and he heard a quarrel between the parties. He is resident of a different village and Mandal and a stranger to the village of the respondent. P.W. 3 was also working as a teacher and he stated that the appellant and her father filed a petition in the office of the MPP to stop the salary to the respondent and place him under suspension, which was not the case of the respondent himself. He also stated that the petition which he has stated is a oral petition and not a written petition. P.W. 4 is the classmate of the respondent. He deposed that in his presence in 1994, the appellant, after quarrelling, left the house with her luggage, which was also not the case of the respondent. P.W. 5 is the brother of the respondent. He is a practising Advocate at Hyderabad since 1979. According to him, the parties were quarrelling. He stated that his father died in the year 1997 and at the time of 10th day ceremony, the appellant creates scenes, but by that time the O.P. for divorce was filed by the respondent and was pending. P.W. 6 also spoke of only quarrels between the parties. The above evidence does not show that there are serious allegations by the respondent against the appellant-wife except the alleged quarrels. From the above evidence, it is clear that the conduct of the appellant could not be or equated as cruelty towards the respondent-husband so as to infer that it will cause reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or injury to health, either physically or mentally. The contra finding that was arrived at by the Court below is not based on evidence and hence the same is not sustainable.
28. Coming to the other ground of the respondent that the appellant made serious allegations of having illegal intimacy with one Chakali Pullamma, it is no doubt true that the appellant had alleged that the respondent was having illegal contacts with other ladies, particularly Chakali Pullamma. Both sides adduced evidence. Apart from the appellant examining herself as R.W. 1, the respondent's own brother was examined as R.W. 2 who supported the allegations of the appellant. R.W. 3 is the wife of R.W. 2 who also supported the evidence of R.W. 2. R.W. 4 is the carpenter who also supported the case of the appellant. In fact, the respondent as P.W. 1, deposed that the appellant entertained suspicion that he was having illegal contacts with other ladies. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is some basis for making such allegation and the same cannot be made a ground for grant of divorce. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision in Paras Ram's case (supra), wherein a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere allegation of adultery made against a spouse in defence in the written statement does not, by itself, amount to cruelty and that the petitioner must establish falsity in such allegation in order that it may constitute cruelty. In K. Manjunath's case (supra) a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that under the circumstances the wife quarrelling with the husband abusing him, cannot be construed that the wife subjected the husband to any sort of mental cruelty as defined in Section 13(1) of the Act.
29. In this case, admittedly, no evidence was adduced by the respondent-husband to disprove the allegations, but the Court below held that the appellant failed to prove the allegations. In fact, the respondent-husband admitted that the appellant entertained a suspicion that he had illicit relations with others.
30. Coming the Division Bench decision of this Court Jayakrishna Panigrahi's case (supra), it was held that the appellant therein was entitled to the relief of divorce since the respondent-wife made wild allegations imputing adulterous: conduct on the part of the husband without any basis, Which: constitutes 'mental cruelty'. In the above case, the respondent-wife alleged that the. husband has got sex relations with one M.V. Bharati. Further, in the suit filed under Section 9 of the Act also, the wife made similar allegations of alleged-illegal intimacy, where an ex parte decree was passed. In that factual background, the Division of this Court, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in V. Bhagat's case (supra) held that while arriving at such conclusion regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in the possibility or otherwise of the parties living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts. It was also held therein that what is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case and it has to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. The Supreme Court in the said case also appended a note of clarification in the following words:
'Merely because there are allegations and counter allegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow. Nor is mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings by itself a ground. There must be really some extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleadings (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But while scrutinizing the evidence on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind.'
On facts and in the circumstances of that case, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that there is no possibility of retrieving the marriage at this stage and it is a fit case to dissolve the marriage based on the conduct of the wife subsequent to the filing of the petition causing mental cruelty to the husband and accordingly passed a decree of divorce.
31. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate's case (supra), the Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue, and held as follows:
'The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant-husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The Position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.'
Thus, it is seen from the above two cases that on facts a finding was recorded by the Courts as to the impossibility of continuing the relationship of husband and wife. Though the allegations made in the petition for divorce are rejected as the allegations are not serious in nature, but, however, on the basis of the allegations made by one spouse against the other, which were accepted, the relief sought for was granted. In the present case, though the relief sought for by the respondent-husband was negatived on the grounds urged by him in the petition for divorce, however, on the allegations made by the appellant-wife, a decree of divorce was granted, A perusal of the material in the present case shows that the Court below is not justified in granting the relief prayed for by the respondent-husband, It is no doubt true that certain allegations were made by the appellant-wife, which are supported by R.Ws. 2 and 3, who are no other than the brother and sister-in-law of the respondent respectively. Further, the respondent himself admitted that the appellant entertained a suspicion that he is having illicit intimacy with other ladies. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the allegations made by the appellant are not made without any basis and under those circumstances, the said allegations cannot be made a ground for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.
32. In view of the discussions made above, the CMA is allowed and the judgment and decree granted by the Court below are set aside.