The court emphasized the need to consider the conduct of both parties and the impact of subsequent events in cases of alleged cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

1. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 18th March 2011 passed in M.C.No.40/2003 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, whereby the marriage of the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce.

2. As the facts unfurl, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against his wife seeking decree of divorce. It was alleged that, the parties were married as per the customs on 5.11.2000 and a female child is born on 15.6.2001. After the birth of the child, the wife became non-cooperative. She was very rude and arrogant with her husband and the in-laws. She used to abuse her husband in the presence of others and also insulted and abused his parents. Once she assaulted the husband for which he had to go to hospital. She used to drop and break the household articles and neglected the child. Her brother, who is a politician, supported her and put threat to his life and also to the life of his family members. On the request of the wife, a rented house was arranged for their separate living. But the wife put threat to the life of the husband and once attempted to stab him with a sharp edged household article. Hence, he left the matrimonial home in the month of December 2002 and started residing with his parents. There is no safety to his life. Hence, the petition.

3. The wife contested the petition, admitted the relationship and also birth of a female child from the wedlock. Her counter allegation was, she was discharging her marital duties and obligations properly. Some time after the marriage, the husband used to come home late by consuming liquor and was behaving abnormally with her. After the birth of the female child, he ill-treated her and abused her in the presence of others, unnecessarily assaulted her at the instigation of his family members. He failed to discharge his matrimonial obligations towards her and also her child. She was subjected to physical and mental torture. He left the matrimonial home during second week of December 2002 without informing her. Since the husband's family members refused to divulge any details about the husband's whereabouts, she was constrained to lodge a complaint to the Police. On interrogation of the family members, the husband appeared before the Police and informed that he has filed a matrimonial case for divorce and refused to join her. On the above, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. After completion of the pleadings, the couple were examined as PW-1 and RW-1 respectively and documents Exs.P1 to P9 and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked. The trial court after giving audience to both parties granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, however, negatived his case about desertion.

5. Sri.Mohammed Rizwan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/wife submits that the trial court upheld the contention of the husband that the wife has caused cruelty to him, by relying on the reported judgments, which have no relevance to the facts of this case. In each of the reported cases relied by the learned Trial Judge, case ended up in acquittal of accused and the court held that they were false complaints. But those judgments have no semblance to be facts herein. Because of the torture inflicted on her, the wife had lodged complaint against the husband and in-laws. Dismissal of her complaint by itself cannot be a ground to hold that she was cruel to her husband and in-laws. The trial court has held that the wife gave different version with regard to the amount of dowry. But it is not the quantum of the dowry amount that counts, but the conduct of the husband and the in-laws in receiving the dowry thereby committing the offence punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act and also Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge has observed that, she did not examine her father to prove her allegation regard