The main legal point established in the judgment is that for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, cruelty must cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner, and such cruelty can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 1 ) . Victor Sebastian is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11. 8. 2005 passed in MC No. 24/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Udupi in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellant-husband married respondent on 8. 5. 1996 at U. B. M. Jublee Church, Udupi as per the customary rights of Protestant Christians. Parties are related to each other. The respondent is a daughter of appellant's mother's younger sister. Parties were knowing each other from their childhood and at the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Duba. After marriage, at the respondent's instance, the newly married couple had rented a house and they were staying together at Udup. After four months of the marriage, the respondent had vacated the rented house and gone to her parents house, taking away an advance deposit amount paid by the appellant to the landlord in the. matter. She did not join her husband. The respondent in the light of the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act 2001 filed a petition Under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act 1869 before the learned Judge alleging cruelty in the matter. Objections were filed. Witnesses were examined. The learned Judge, after hearing has chosen to allow the application filed by the respondent-wife in terms of the impugned order. This order is challenged before us.

( 3 ) . Vishwajith Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that in terms of the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that Section 10 (x) is attracted to the facts of this case. According to him/ there is no cruelty as such warranting divorce in terms of the findings of the learned Judge. He further argues that the Senior Civil Judge of Udupi Court has no jurisdiction in terms of the definition under the 1869 Act. He wants our interference.

( 4 ) . Ananda Shetty, learned Counsel for the respondent supports. the order of the learned judge.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing, we have carefully perused the material placed on record. . An application Under section 10 (1) (x) of Divorce Act, 1869 as amended by Act of 51/2001 was filed before the Civil judge, Sr. Division, Udupi in M. C. No. 24/2002. The respondent-wife alleged in the petition that her husband was initially employed at Dubai and thereafter he started residing with the respondent in a rented house in Udup. According to her, her husband is addicted to drinks and he used to assault her very badly. He did not returned to Dubai after marriage and he was without job. She has also stated that the husband used to demand ' money from ' her for drinking and he ill-treated her. Her life became miserable. She was compelled to return, to her parents house. She waited for some time hoping that the husband would return back but unfortunately, the ill-treatment continued. It was in these circumstances, she filed a petition as mentioned earlier. Objection statement was filed stating therein that after marriage the appellant-husband helped his younger brother to set up a separated welding and machine shop for which the respondent and her parents raised objection. Mis-understanding between the appellant and respondent increased. He also stated that he did not get Visa and in those circumstances, he has to come back to Udup. He has to take care of his father and sister. His wife was not ready to come and join the husband-appellant. He denied other allegations. Evidence was recorded. After evidence, the learned Trial Judge has chosen to grant the decree in terms of the impugned order.

( 6 ) LET us see as to. whether the said findings are justifiable or not in the given circumstances. Two issues were framed and they were answered in favour of the wife. As mentioned earlier/ two contentions are raised. One is with regard to Jurisdiction of the Courts at Udupi and the second contention is with regard to the applicability of Section 10 (x) of the Act to the given case on hand.

( 7 ) IN so far as question No. 1 is concerned,. one has to see the definitio