Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant (for brevity 'the husband') to assail the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.208-A/2013, whereby his marriage with the respondent (for brevity 'the wife') has been annulled by issuing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the parties were married at Bilaspur on 19.04.2004 and have one son born from the wedlock, who resides with the respondent herein. The divorce petition was preferred by the wife alleging, inter alia, that the husband is habitual drunker and used to assault the wife in a state of intoxication and for this habit of the husband he never stayed long in any service and was also not keeping good health and moreover his conduct was adversely affecting the son. It was further alleged that the husband used to visit her workplace in a state of intoxication and had also assaulted her parents. The husband was also treated for mental imbalance. When the wife started residing separately, the husband humiliated her parents and assaulted them publicly in presence of residents of the locality.

3. The husband denied the allegation of habitual in consuming liquor. He also stated that because of adverse market condition he could not get stable job in any company for which he was under mental pressure, which resulted in dispute between the parties, which led to the wife's leaving matrimonial home at the instance of others. It was also stated that since the wife is employed as teacher, she wants to live comfortable, therefore, on persuasion of others, the divorce petition has been preferred by the wife.

4. The Family Court found that the husband's conduct and behavior amounts to cruelty and has, therefore, granted decree of divorce in favour of the wife.

5. The short question for decision making is - Whether consumption of liquor and assaulting the wife and her parents in such state would amount to cruelty ?

6. Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.

7. Thus, a decree for divorce can be granted on the ground of cruelty, however, the word 'cruelty' has not been defined under the Act, 1955, therefore, the question as to what act or omission or conduct or behavior of a party to a marriage would constitute cruelty has to be understood in the facts and circumstances of each case.

8. The guiding principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in plethora of judgments. In Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 the Supreme Court noted that the enquiry has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.

9. Lord Denning, L.J. in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398 observed thus :

“If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find ourselves granting divorce for incompatibility of temperament. This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs where the institution of marriage itself is imperilled.”

10. The Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994) 1 SCC 337 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expect