JUDGMENT - DAGA V. C., J.:---This appeal is by the original petitioner/husband against the judgment and decree dated 6th March, 2000 passed by the learned Family Court, Pune in P.A. No. 262 of 1993 refusing to grant decree of divorce sought by the appellant/husband on the ground of cruelty as contemplated by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("Act" for short).

2. When this matter was initially called out we enquired with the parties to the appeal as to whether it was possible to reconcile their differences and start living together. However, we were informed that number of attempts were made by different benches from time to time but they could not bring about any settlement between the parties, with the result, we were left with no other alternative but to proceed with the hearing and decide the same in accordance with law.

Factual Score.

3. The factual score depicts that the parties to the petition got married on 31st October, 1979 under Special Marriage Act, 1954. The appellant is a Hindu whereas respondent is Christian by religion. Parties to the appeal have two sons from this wedlock. Elder son Vishal was born to them in the year 1981, and younger one Vipul was born in the year 1984. Both spouses are financially independent. Both of them are in service.

4. Both of them after marriage happily lived together. But after some time bickering started raising their head which ultimately, resulted in matrimonial litigation between the parties. The appellant/husband had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act. The said petition; which was registered as P.A. No. 1069/1989; came to be withdrawn as the respondent/wife had furnished undertaking cum compromise admitting her mistake in filing false complaint with police, against appellant/husband on the advice of her sister, brother-in-law and sister-in-law alleging misbehaviour on his part and upon expressing her regrets for an act of threatening to commit suicide and thereby attempting to falsely implicate the appellant/husband. The copy of the said undertaking cum compromise (Exh. 35) is on record.

5. It appears that after aforesaid compromise in the year 1989 the relationships between the parties has started showing some improvements but after some time it took a bad turn. The relations between the spouses became sour, which resulted in shooting allegations and counter allegations with character assassination of each other and went on to the extent of physical assault resulting in police complaints.

6. The appellant/husband initiated another matrimonial litigation and filed petition for divorce under section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act being P.A. No. 262 of 1993 which came to be filed in the Family Court, Pune. On being noticed, the respondent/wife appeared in Family Court, filed her written statement. The parties were permitted to file their respective documents. They were asked to lead their oral evidence and examine their respective witnesses. The Family Court alter full trial of the matrimonial dispute was pleased to refuse to grant divorce as sought by the appellant/husband.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Family Court, Pune, the original petitioner/husband preferred this appeal. That is how this appeal was placed before us for final hearing.

The parties to the appeal were heard at length. Both of them took us through the rival pleadings including the evidence of the respective parties and tried their best to focus our attention to the misbehaviour of each other and tried to throw blame on each other for creating situation in which both of them are finding themselves in.

7. The law on the cruelty is now well-settled that though the word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act, 'Cruelty' contemplated under Clause (d) of section 27(1) of the Special Marriage Act does not attract the old English doctrine of physical danger. It is similar to that as contemplated in section 13(1)(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document