The court's interpretation of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, emphasizes the subjective perception of the aggrieved spouse and the impact of the other spouse's behavior on their mental well-being, rather than relying solely on physical violence or injury.

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.

This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated November 16, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Durgapur, district: Burdwan in Matrimonial Suit no. 10 of 2004/192 of 2003.

By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial judge dismissed the said suit filed by the husband without, however, any order as to costs. The husband, who is the appellant before this Court, instituted the said matrimonial suit for divorce on September 20, 2003.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on January 21, 1992.

The husband alleged that the wife treated him with cruelty and because of such cruel behaviour of his wife, the husband became a neurotic patient. From the very beginning of the marriage the husband and the members of his family noticed that the wife was ill-tempered and was in the habit of picking up quarrels in respect of petty matters. She abused the husband and other members of the family with harsh and provocative languages damaging the peace and tranquility of the family. She threatened that she would commit suicide and embroil the members of the family of the husband. She was not interested to attend any household chorus. The husband was compelled to attend his office without food. However, with the birth of the daughter, there was change in the behavioural pattern of the wife. But, unfortunately, after one and half year, the wife again started misbehaving with the parents-in-law and the husband. The grandparents were not allowed to interact with their granddaughter. The mother of the husband was a service holder in a hospital. She raised questions regarding character of the mother of the husband. The parents of the husband were insulted when they came to see their son, daughter-in-law and the granddaughter. While the parties were residing at Santipath, Durgapur, they were asked not to come there. The father of the husband was beaten and pushed by the wife. On April 23, 2003 she gave a written undertaking that she would obey her parents-in-law and her husband and, also, admitted her wrongful acts. The wife treated the husband with cruelty encroaching the minimum comfort in his life and, thus, the husband was suffering from mental agony. The wife contested the suit by filing a written statement. She had denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that the husband was rude and cruel.

On December 14, 2003, the husband assaulted the wife mercilessly by fist and blows and, thereafter, drove her out from her matrimonial house. The husband never looked after the wife and the minor child.

It is an admitted position that the wife initiated a proceeding against the husband and her in-laws under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the husband and the in-laws were acquitted on May 7, 2010. A copy of decision dated May 7, 2010 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur, district Burdwan, is filed with the application for bringing on records subsequent events. It is, also, admitted that the parties are living separately from August 2003. The learned trial judge, by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the said suit holding, inter alia, that there were trouble, quarrel and unrest in the family centering round the wife, but it was not wholly true that the wife was alone the root of all evils. She might have some contribution towards such disharmony, but it should not be reckoned as unilateral cruelty inflicted by her upon her husband. Mere incompatibility of temperament could not be regarded as cruelty. Being aggrieved, the husband has come up with this appeal before this Court. The plaintiff witness no. 1 is the husband himself. In the evidence he reiterated her allegations and stated that the wife initiated a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He stated that the wife was residing with the daughte