The demand for dowry and the consequent harassment constituted cruelty, entitling the wife to dissolution of marriage. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the wife's sentiments, ambitions, and basic needs, and considered the impact of the husband's conduct on the wife's mental and physical well-being.

1. Subramonian, an Engineering Graduate, married on 25-8-1974 Rajani, then a post-graduate student. The couple lived together until 1982 and three children are born to them. In the meantime, Rajani continued her studies and completed the LL.B. Course and is now gainfully employed. She separated from her husband in 1982 and started living along with the three children in. her parental home.

2. Rajani filed a petition under S.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The petition was numbered as O.P. 77 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam.

The husband denied the allegations and moved the court for restitution of conjugal rights. The two petitions were jointly tried. The parties were examined and documents proved.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge by the common order dated 12-12-1984 disposed of the petitions. The learned judge found that the cruelty alleged has not been established. The wife was however granted a decree for judicial separation under S.13A of the Act. The husband's application for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed with the reservation that if there is no reunion within a period of two years, he may move afresh.

4. This appeal is preferred by the aggrieved wife, the petitioner in O.P.No.77 of 1984. The parties had approached the court in 1982. The proceedings regarding custody of the children are pending. There had been serious endeavour for bringing about reconciliation between the parties at all stages of the litigation. The attempts proved futile.

5. We heard counsel on both sides on merits. The point that falls for consideration in the appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to have the marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

6. To satisfy the requirement under S.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act the appellant has to establish that after the solemnisation of the marriage she was treated by the husband with cruelty. The allegation made by the appellant is required to be proved by preponderance of probabilities. The case of the appellant is that soon after the marriage the respondent made a demand for fabulous amount as dowry and started ill-treating her, that he behaved without any love or affection and had by his conduct forced her to live with her parents. The respondent maintained that there was no ill-feeling between the respondent and the appellant and the litigation had been inspired by the appellant's relatives on account of the difference of opinion regarding the employment of the appellant. In the witness box the appellant narrated her harrowing tale. The respondent challenged the same and affirmed the circumstances which, according to him, led to discordance. There is no independent evidence either way. From the attitude of the parties it is abundantly clear that there is no chance for any reunion and that the marriage is irretrievably broken. It is only in the interest of the children who are in the age group of 6 to 12 that a chance appears to have been given by the learned Subordinate Judge for the parents to reunite.

7. After hearing the counsel on both sides, we directed the parties to appear before us. We heard them in person. We are satisfied that the appellant has no intention to join the husband and the offer made by the respondent to provide an ideal matrimonial home, congenial to the welfare of the children and the happiness of the wife, lacks bonafides. It is only a ruse to avoid legal consequences. In such circumstances, we have to examine the evidence on record dispassionately and with a view to determine whether cruelty as a matrimonial offence has been proved or the stalemate is to continue for ever.

8. Cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage has necessarily to be proved by the petitioner by establishing a course of conduct on the part of the respondent adversely affecting the petitioner. Matrimonial conduct constituting cruelty