Honble AGRAWAL, C.J: — This is a wifes appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 18.11.1991 decreeing the suit of the husband for divorce and for grant of permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. till the life time of the wife or till she did not marry.

(2). The respondent-Vijay Shanker Talchidia was married with the appellant Meera on 25.11.1976. Both lived together at Sawai Madhopur, but no child was born to them.

(3). The respondent alleged cruelty against the appellant for seeking divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(4). Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides the grounds of divorce. It reads as under : —

"Section 13(1)- 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 party-

(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has after the solemnization, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(5). The respondent asserted two acts of cruelty. One of them was that the respondent took 3-4 Crossin tablets for committing suicide and the other was that she attempted to burn herself by collecting fire wood in the premises of the husband. The husband also alleged adultery on her part. He alleged that in 1978, he saw his wife sitting with a young boy, who was indulging in undesirable and unjustified activities

(6). The petition was contested by the appellant denying all the allegations. She asserted that these grounds had been manufactured by the respondent for getting a decree of divorce.

(7). On the pleadings of the parties, six issues were framed by the court below. The issues which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Issues No. 4 was no adultery.

Under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, adultery has been provided as a ground of divorce.

(8). The evidence led by the respondent consisted of his statement that he saw his wife sitting with the young boy who was indulging in undesirable and unjustified activities. The court below held that the young boy was domestic servant. He had no illicit relations with the appellant. From the evidence of the, the court below concluded that it did not establish that the appellant had any sexual relationship with the young boy. The act alleged was not of indulgence is sex.

(9). This ground was rightly disbelieved by the court below. Nothing was shown to me by the learned counsel for the respondent to take a different view on the findings recorded by the court below.

(10). Issues Nos.l and 2 are connected with each other and can be disposed of together.

(11). The appellant was said to have taken 3-4 Crosine tablets with the intention to commit suicide or involving the respondent in some criminal case. The appellant denied that she took Crosine for the purpose suggested by the respondent.

(12). After having read statements of the witnesses, I am unable to hold that taking of 3-4 Crosine tablets by the appellant amounted to cruelty and that the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce on that basis.

(13). Cruelty is a ground for divorce under section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Whether particular conduct amounted to cruelty would be determined on facts and circumstances in each case. It has not been defined in the Act as it was not possible to do so. Section 13 (l)(ia) has undergone a change by 1976 amendment made by the Parliament.

(14). Before the amendment of 1976, the Act contained a different formulation of cruelty. At that time, the petitioner was required to show that the respondent had treated him or her with such cruelty as to caus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document