The burden of proving mental cruelty was not discharged by the respondent, and the court found that no instance of cruelty was proved.

A.K. Menon, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2007 passed by the Family Court No.5, Mumbai in Petition No.A-157 of 2004 granting a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The facts in brief revealed that both the Appellant and Respondent were Hindu, domiciled in Mumbai and were married on 27.12.2002, according to Hindu Vedic rites and customs. The marriage has not been registered but there is no dispute as to the factum of marriage. There are no issues out of the said marriage.

2. The first ground of cruelty alleged is that after marriage, the Appellant did not consumate the marriage inter alia for the reason that she did not want to conceive. According to the Respondent, he was the only son and was staying with his parents. He expected the Appellant to behave with love and affection towards him and with his parents specially since his parents treated the Appellant like their own daughter. However, she never appreciated this.

3. The next ground of cruelty which is set out in the petition is that after the marriage with the Appellant, she took up employment and did not disclose the address and phone number to the Respondent nor did she disclose the nature of work she was engaged in. She used to leave at 8.30 am and return at 8.30 pm. The third ground is that the Appellant always complained about her health and frequently quarreled with the Respondent and his parents and thereby disturbed the otherwise peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial law. The Respondent contends that he requested, the Appellant to undergo a check up at Sion hospital but she refused. The next ground pleaded is that the Appellant had threatened to commit suicide without any reason.

4. According to the Respondent due to aforesaid reasons, the Respondent was faced with continuous physical and mental torture by the Appellant. The Respondent contends that he was ready to stay separate with her but there was no response from the Appellant. The Appellant was frequently visiting her parents house without informing the Respondent and it is the Respondent's case that on 17.10.2003 the Appellant quarreled with the Respondent and left the matrimonial home without any just and reasonable cause taking with her ornament and other belongings. The Respondent apparently visited his in-laws and told them about the incident but he received no support from them. After the said incident the Respondent had requested the Appellant to join him but she remained adamant and declined despite several attempts made of reconciliation were of no avail. Ultimately, the Respondent issued a legal notice calling upon her to do so. It is on these grounds that the Respondent claims that he was entitled to a decree of divorce.

5. The Appellant wife filed her written statement in which she admitted the marriage and contended that various items gifted at the time of marriage including jwellery were in custody of the Respondent. Her version taken up by her in reply to the Respondent's Advocate notice, has remained uncontroverted. Cohabitation was admitted and it is contended that the Respondent was earning income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The marriage was admittedly consumated after 15 days. It was contended by the Appellant on one occasion she had visited her neighbour and her mother-in-law warned her against meeting with the neighbours. On another occasion, it seems that the father-in-law informed her parents that she would not be allowed in the matrimonial home unless she starts eating non-vegetarian food. Attempts were made by the Appellant's brother to pacify the Respondent and his parents. Apparently, the Respondent suggested to the Appellant that they would stay separately. Despite all this it appears that on 17.10.2003 her in-laws quarreled with her and insulted her on a trivial issue of having made small chapatt