Mental cruelty may constitute cruelty within the meaning of the Act.

1. The petitioner in O.P.No. 30 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, whose application for dissolution of marriage under S.13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is dismissed, is the appellant in this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

2. The above petition was filed for a decree for dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and for consequential reliefs. In the petition it was alleged that the appellant married the respondent on 30-8-1976, that they lived together for some time, that the respondent indulged in several acts of misbehaviour and had treated the appellant with cruelty and deserted him for a long time, and in the circumstances the appellant was entitled to a decree for dissolving the marriage. The respondent resisted the petition and contended that the allegations of cruelty, misbehaviour and desertion are untrue. She admitted that she was residing separately.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing cruelty and misbehaviour entitling him to get a divorce.

4. In order to substantiate his contention the appellant examined P.Ws. 2 to 4 besides himself and also produced Exts. A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent, was examined as RW.1 and Ext.B1 was marked on her behalf.

5. It is the common case of both parties that the appellant married the respondent on 30-8-1976 at Athavanad in Malappuram District. In the petition the appellent averred that immediately after the marriage the appellant took the respondent to his place of work at Kodumba in Palghat District and both of them were residing as husband and wife According to the appellant soon after they started to live together at Kodumba she began to behave towards him in cruel manner. She also misbehaved towards the neighbours. In the circumstances the appellant was forced to apply for a transfer and accordingly he was transferred and posted at Pannikottur in 1977 and both of them started to reside at Pannikottur. According to the appellant the respondent continued her misbehaviour there also. She refused to cook food for him, to wash his clothes and also to talk with the appellant. She used to run out of the house and create scenes at night. She also used to threaten the appellant that she would commit suicide unless she was sent home. The appellant also alleged that on 13-8-1977 the respondent went away from his house and did not come back to resume cohabitation thereafter. On 24-9-1979 the respondent came to appellant's dispensary at about 5 pm. along with her father's brother, father's brother's son Velayudhan and some others. She abused the appellant, broke her Thali-chain and threw the same at the appellant. She also lock away the utensils belonging to her as well as the wedding ring she bad put on the appellant's finger. Thereafter the appellant tried for a settlement and customary divorce but the negotiations failed and the present application for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty was filed.

6. In the written statement the respondent denied the allegations in the petition. According to her she had never behaved towards the appellant in a cruel manner. She bad also not given any occasion for ill-feeling between herself and the neighbours while residing at Kodumba in Palghat District. She also denied the allegation that she misbehaved towards the appellant while residing at Pannikottur. The allegations that she refused to cook food for him or to wash his clothes or to talk with the appellant for several days are all false. The further allegation that she went to the dispensary at Pannikottur and abused him and broke her thali and threw away the same is also untrue. According to her after the marriage she loved the appellant and acted always in accordance with his desire and dictates. She further averred that after the marriage the appellant began to compel and pressurise her to induce