JUDGMENT - SAVANT A.V., J.:---What is meant by the word "cruelty" in matrimonial law? Is the old English law concept of "danger" applicable in India today? If wild, reckless and baseless allegations of impotency and lack of manliness are made in the written statement, can this by itself amount to cruelty in matrimonial law? These are some of the questions which arise for determination in this appeal by the original respondent-wife.

2. At the outset I must mention that in accordance with the mandate of section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, an attempt was made to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. The wife who is now staying at Delhi had come down to Bombay. However, I am informed by the learned Counsel Mr. K.S.V. Murthy for the appellant-wife and Mr. C.G. Patil for the respondent-husband that despite their efforts to bring about the reconciliation, they have not been successful at all. Unfortunately, the parties are staying separately since September, 1980 i.e. for nearly more than ten years now. There is thus, no alternative left but to decide the matter on merits.

3. This appeal by the wife seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1983 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Nasik, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 188 of 1981. The said petition was filed by the husband on 7th September, 1981 for a decree for divorce on the grounds of (i) cruelty under section 13(1)(ia), (ii) desertion under section 13(1)(b) and (iii) that the wife was suffering......from mental disorder as contemplated by section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The admitted facts are as under :

4. The parties are Hindus and belong to the Sindhi community. The husband is a lawyer practising at Nasik and the wife is an Arts graduate from Delhi. On 27th April 1980, the parties were married at Nasik in accordance with Hindu rites. The wife stayed with the husband at Nasik till 5th June, 1980 i.e. for a period of 40 days after the marriage. A common friend Dr. Badlani who stays at Nasik had taken part in bringing about the marriage. On 5th June, 1980, the wife left the matrimonial home and went to stay with Dr. Badlani. On 10th June, 1980, she left Nasik for Delhi. On 24th August, 1980 she came back to Nasik in the company of the father of the husband. The father of the husband is a retired Excise Officer who is now practising as a consultant and had been to Delhi in connection with some work. On his return, the wife accompanied the father of the husband and stayed with the husband at Nasik till 5th September, 1980 i.e. to stay for a period of 10 days. In between, on 27th August, 1980 the mother of the husband wrote a letter to the brother of the wife, namely Baldev, which letter is at Exh. 40, where the mother of the husband made a general grievance about the wife not being able to perform the household duties. There is no reference to any specific act or instance but the letter is replete with the grievance that the wife is not able to perform the household duties at all. As stated earlier, on 5th September, 1980, after a brief stay for about 10 days with the husband, the wife left Nasik for Delhi.

5. On 18th November, 1980, the father of the husband wrote to the brother of the wife at Delhi which letter is at Ex. 43. The father referred to the indifferent and defiant mood of the wife and also to the threats given to his wife (mother-in-law of the appellant). However, the father expressed a hope that the members of the wife's family would realise their social as well as moral obligations and require her to come to Nasik. In this letter also there is no reference to any specific instance of either an act of cruelty or an act indicating mental disorder or any psychopathic disorder.

6. On 9th March, 1981, the father of the husband again wrote to the father of the wife making a grievance of the peculiar behaviour of the wife who had acted as a person of "unbalanced mind". It is stated in the said letter dated 9th Marc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document