The evidence must establish a case of cruelty as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to warrant a divorce on the ground of cruelty.

ORDER :- The judgment dated 16-2-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's appeal, HMA No. 1113/01/97 seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty is challenged in this appeal under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act').

2. The parties were married on 16-5-1985. Three children were born to them. At the time of filing of the petition in the year 1997, the three children were aged about 10 years, 4 years and 2 years respectively. Case of the appellant.

3. In his petition before the Trial Court, the appellant's case of cruelty was based on the following averments:

(i) The appellant claimed that soon after the marriage, the respondent started behaving irrationally with the appellant and used to create embarrassing scenes with all the members of the family. It is claimed that the respondent was under the control of some super natural power. She used to abuse the parents of the appellant. The appellant used to take the respondent to various places for her treatment in February, March and April 1992. It is claimed that when she returned from her parental home, she used to hurl abuses at the appellant and his parents and also used to physically hurt the petitioner.

(ii) The appellant stated that on 7-5-1992 the behaviour of the respondent became so unbearable that the appellant had shifted to the separate house at Tri Nagar. A reference has been made to the incident made on 8-7-1993 when the respondent was supposed to have abused the appellant after seeing the house belonging to the father of the appellant and demanded Rs. 4 lakhs from the father of the appellant. The appellant who had shifted the premises at Tri Nagar on 17-4-1994 to Janta Flats, Ram Pura, Delhi.

(iii) It is stated that as a result of the continuous harassment by the respondent of the appellant the father of the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction before the District Judge, Delhi and interim injunction was granted in those proceedings restraining the defendants therein from entering into the house of the plaintiff at Tri Nagar.

(iv) There was an incident on January 15, 1996 when the respondent left the home without prior intimation to the appellant. On 31-1-1996 she threatened the parents of the appellant that she would kill herself after killing the appellant. The appellant claimed that on the next date he was compelled to call the police, who left after pacifying the respondent. On 2-2-1996 the respondent again left the house at 9.30 a. m. without informing the appellant for which the appellant lodged an FIR with the police. Later on, the appellant found that the respondent had gone to Balaji, a place in Rajasthan, An incident occurred on 14-5-1996 which required intervention by the police. On 27-7-1996 the respondent harassed the appellant by abusing him and his parents demanded a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. On 17-12-1996 she again created a scene as a result of which the appellant on 27-12-1996 wrote to the SDM. When he returned home she locked him out. He remained outside the house for three days thereafter. Case of the respondent.

4. The respondent has a very different version to narrate in the written statement. She states that she is a Post Graduate and has MA B. Ed. degree. It is claimed that till the middle of 1995 she was not suffering from any serious ailment and there was no question of getting her treated by anyone till then. It is denied that she misbehaved with the appellant and his family members as alleged or she was in the habit of creating scenes and blaming the appellant and his parents or that she would not do household work. It is stated that the house at Tri Nagar was taken on rent by the father of the appellant for the appellant and that the appellant himself had requested his father to allow him to live in his Janta Flats, Rampura, Delhi which the father of the appellant permitted. She states that on 4-1-1995 when the respondent was not able to prepare food for th