The court emphasized the impact of the husband's treatment on the wife during their marriage and considered the concept of cruelty as per Halsbury's Laws of England and the test of cruelty as laid down by the Apex Court.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court at Shivamogga in M.C. No. 107/2012 dated 05.04.2013, whereby the petition filed under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the appellant/wife, seeking dissolution of her marriage on the ground of cruelty is dismissed, the wife is in appeal before this Court.

2. As the facts unfurl:

The wife filed a petition for divorce against respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty. Her case was, that the parties were married on 05.05.2002, as per the customs prevailing in their Rajaputh community; after the marriage the wife joined the husband in the matrimonial home at Bhadravathi; the said house was located in a slum area though the respondent and his family is very rich. During her stay in the matrimonial home, she was witnessing quarrels in her neighbourhood every day; the husband was quarrelling with her for petty matters; he was alcoholic and in his intoxicated state, he beat her many times; his parents were scolding him for his bad behaviour. Her way of life was different from that of the husband and if at any time she expressed her opinion, he used to tell her that he would divorce her and marry again. He is very weak in private life; she did not conceive even after two years of her marriage; she never enjoyed the marital life to the fullest satisfaction. As days went on he became averse to cohabitation due to his inability to have it. The couple consulted one doctor by name Dr. Mallesh Hulamani at City Hospital, Shivamogga; thereafter she came to know that her husband is infertile and she had no hopes of begetting a child; even after treatment, his potency did not improve; she came to her parents house on 15.11.2007 and stayed for a long time; the respondent/husband called her back over phone and scolded her in filthy language and she apprehends threat to her life. By way of amendment, she further pleaded that the husband on 10.11.2008, married one Seema, daughter of Kamala Bai and now, is residing with her and leading marital life with her.

3. The husband/respondent contested the petition, admitted the relationship but traversed the allegations, touching the locality of his house, the quarrels in the neighbourhood, his alcoholic attitude, his weakness in private life, marrying again etc. He admitted about consulting the doctor but denied the petition allegation pertaining to alleged cruelty, impotency and second marriage. His defence was, her parents and other elders had visited his house prior to the marriage. After fully consenting about the standard of his living, she has married him. She insisted for a separate residence and was not willing to stay with his parents. He told her that he is the only son to his parents and can not be separated from his parents. He is ready to take her back and lead happy marital life.

4. The petition was allowed at the first instance and in the appeal by the husband, the judgment of Court below was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court below. After the remand, the petition was amended by the wife by incorporating the allegations of second marriage. Both parties lead evidence and marked documents Exs.P. 1 to P.4 and Exs. Rl to R.5. After giving audience to both parties, the learned Family Court has dismissed the petition.

5. Sri. R. Gopal, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the wife in it's proper perspective and has come to erroneous conclusion that the wife failed to prove the ground of cruelty. She had proved the second marriage of the husband by examining the witnesses but the evidence of PWs.2 to 3 was disbelieved on the fragile ground that they are related to her. It is not reasonable to expect direct evidence in respect of second marriage which is secretly performed. The Family Court erroneously held that, infer