Honble MOHAPATRA, J.–Leave granted.

(2). What is the meaning and import of the expression `cruelty as a matrimonial offence is the core question on the determination of which depends the result and the fate of this case.

(3). The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 6.12.1985. The marriage was preceded by negotiation between the two families, ring exchange ceremony, etc. A meeting between the boy and the girl was also arranged at Yamuna Nagar in the State of Haryana. After marriage the spouses stayed together at Panipat where the respondent was posted as a Judicial Officer. They lived together till 28.04.1986 when they parted company never to stay together again. It is the case of the respondent that right from the first day of the marriage he sensed something abnormal with his wife; he was unable to. consummate the marriage as there was no cooperation from the side of the wife for sexual intercourse. Despite several attempts cohabitation was not possible for lack of cooperation on the part of the wife. It is the further case of the respondent that when he first met his wife when some members of the two families met he had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document