.....not necessary that physical violence should be used. continuous illtreatment. cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which may undermine the health of a wife. in such oases, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the wife may legitimately apprehend, that if she goes to her husband there will be a repetition of such conduct which may result in a complete breakdown of her health.'
'where evidence of physical violence is not per se sufficient to warrant a finding of cruelty, the court is bound to take into consideration the general conduct of the husband towards the wife and if this is of a character, tending to degrade the wife and subjecting her to a course of intense indignity injurious to her health, the court is at liberty to pronounce the cruelty proved.'
(ii) soosannamma kurien v. varghese abraham, air 1957 trav-co., 277. there, dealing with a case under the divorce act, a division bench of that high court had occasion to observe that:
'it is not correct to say that) under the divorce act, 1869, only physical cruelty will be a defence on an action for restitution of conjugal rights. the word cruelty as used in s. 22 of the act is not restricted to physical cruelty.'
'legal cruelty is still the proper defence, but the progressive tendency of law and the requirements to modern civilized life have left mere physical violence in the background. thus, in an application for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband under section 22 of the act the wife may express her fear that there will be the exercise of tyranny by the husband, subjecting her to constant insults and abuses and accusation of adulterous conduct. this would make a state of married life impossible to be endured and cause a very unhappy and miserable state of existence. this is cruelty of a worse kind than that of physical violence.'
(iii) mst. gurdev.....ordermisc. first appeal no. 22 of 59.14. i allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the trial court and grant mt. padma a decree for judicial separations against parma ram under section 10(1)(b) of the hindu marriage act, 1955. she will get her costs, here and in the court below, from the respondent misc. first appeal no. 23 of 59.15. i allow this appeal and set aside the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted by the trial court, i. e., parma ram's petition under section 9(1) of the act is dismissed. the appellant will get her costs here, and in the court below, from the respondent.16. this judgment will be read in both theappeals, i. e., misc. first appeals 22 and 23 of 1959.appeals allowed.