Mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is conduct that inflicts mental pain and suffering, making it impossible for the other party to live with the perpetrator. The determination of cruelty depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering factors such as social status, educational level, and the possibility of cohabitation.

ORDER

Dhaddha, J. - This appeal has been preferred by appellant Deedar Devi (wife) against the order of the learned Family Court, Sikar passed on 10.04.2018 in matrimonial Civil Misc. Case No.175/2014 filed by respondent Jhabarmal Sheshma (husband) u/s 13(l)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against Deedar Devi (wife) whereby the learned Family Court allowed the civil case and annulled the marriage with effect from the date of the order i.e. 10.04.2018. Being aggrieved with the said order, appellant wife filed this appeal.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.02.2017 at Dausar according to the Hindu rites and customs. The spouses were blessed with a male child, namely Harshit on 29.11.2009. On asking from the appellant wife by the respondent husband as to why she had been having long conversations with unknown persons, she did not give any reply for the same. The respondent husband took it that his wife was having a suspicious character. Wife started saying that she was educated and would not do household work. The appellant wife delivered a male child in Janana Hospital, Sikar, from where she went to her parental house at Dausar and not at the house of respondent husband at Rajpura. On account of this, the behaviour of the appellant wife became rude and aggressive towards him. Appellant wife insulted the respondent husband by saying that "You are not B. A pass", whereas "I am M.A. & B.Ed." So, he stopped visiting her parental house. The appellant wife lodged a false criminal case for the offences of demand of dowry.

3. In reply, the appellant wife denied all the facts except her marriage and birth of her son Harshit. She stated that respondent husband had demanded one lakh rupees and an Alto car. She submitted that respondent husband and his family members expelled her from the house on 05.04.2009. She submitted that criminal case for offences u/s 498A, 406 and 323 Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 was also pending against her husband. So, the petition be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Family Court :-

"1. Whether behaviour of respondent wife towards petitioner was cruel; physically as well as mentally. So, petitioner was entitled to get divorce?

2. Whether petitioner had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-and Alto car as dowry and for this he had tortured the respondent wife physically and mentally and wanted to solemnized second marriage, therefore, this divorce petition be dismissed?

3. Relief."

5. The respondent husband examined himself as AW-1, Ram Chandra (AW-2), Lala Ram, (AW-3) and Jhabarmal S/o Shri Bega Ram (AW-4) and exhibited three documents.

6. The appellant wife examined herself as NAW 1, Geeta Devi (NAW-2), Narainram (NAW-3), Hanuman Prasad Sharma (NAW-4), Balbeer (NAW-5) and Vijender (NAW-6) and exhibited eleven documents.

7. Learned Family Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, decided both the issues in favour of the respondent husband and against the appellant wife and therefore, annulled the marriage solemnized between them with effect from the order i.e. 10.04.2018.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant wife submitted that the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record. He submitted that the facts narrated in the divorce petition regarding cruelty are baseless and frivolous.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court had not considered that the appellant did not go to her in-laws house on 05.04.2009 and a compromise was arrived at between them. After that, she went back to join her husband in her in-laws house. The said compromise was only entered by the respondent husband because he was fearing prosecution in criminal case registered against him.

10. Learned counsel for the appellan