JUDGMENT-[His Lordship after holding that the appellant was not entitled either to a divorce under section 13 (1) (iii) or to annulment of marriage under section 12 (1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, proceeded to consider whether the respondent had treated the appellant with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it would be harmful or injurious for the appellant to live with the respondent within the meaning of section 10(1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Ac£. His Lordship referred to a large number of documents signed by the respondent which contained admissions by her about the cruel treatment and torture alleged to have been inflicted by her on the appellant.-j I think that both the Courts have failed to apply the correct principles of law in determining the issue of cruelty in this case in the light of the evidence before the Court. The trial Court ignored the provisions of section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act and assumed that whatever was written down by the respondent in the form of admissions was conclusive proof of the words and happenings mentioned therein and these amounted to cruelty. The trial Court was grossly in error f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document