Cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act does not require danger to life, limb, or health or a reasonable apprehension of it, and delay in filing a petition is not fatal if a reasonable explanation is given.

H. S. Thakur, J. (Oral).—The appellant, who is the wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage ;Act for the dissolution of marriage between them. The senior sub-Judge, Bilaspur (with the powers of District Judge under the Hindu Marriage Act, dismissed the petition of the appellant by his order and judgment dated 24th April, 1980.

2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The facts relevant to the case may be stated. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was married to the respondent on 9th Falgun 2026 Bk. No child is born out of the wedlock. According to the petitioner the respondent maltreated her, he used to give her beatings and did not even provide her with clothing’s and food. As contended by the petitioner, she was not even allowed to talk or have the company of any one in the village including the women folk. The petitioner lived at the house of the respondent for about one and a half years. Feeling that it was not possible for her to live with the respondent, she come to live with her parents. Some panchayats were held to bring about reconciliation between the parties. The respondent was asked by the members of the Panchayat not to give beatings to the petitioner. The petitioner however, replied that ha could give food and clothing’s to the petitioner, but they hid no business to stop him from treating the petitioner in any manner he liked. When the efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties failed, the petitioner filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage.

3. The trial court after examining the witnesses of both the parties dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner had not been able to establish cruelty against her and moreover there was also delay in filing the petition. It may be pointed out that on the pleadings of the parties as many as 7 issues were framed, but at the time of arguments, only the issu3 regarding cruelty was pressed.

4. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court and hive also perused the evidence on record. In Halsburys Laws of England, cruelty has been defined as under : "The legal conception of cruelty, which is not define i by statute, is generally described as conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb, or health (bodily or mental; or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger." It may, however, be noticed that under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is not necessary, as under the English Law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause "danger" to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Under the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act in short), the marriage would be dissolved if it is proved that the other party has after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. As such, danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension of it, is not the requirement of the Act. The petitioner has appeared as her own witness and has stated that the respondent used to give beatings to her and did not permit her even to talk to any neighbour, a male or female. It is further stated by her that the respondent threatened her that in case she talked to any one she would be put to death. She has also stated in clear words that the respondent gave her beating in the presence of S/Shri Karamu and Kashi, who are the co-villagers of the respondent. Shri Karamu has appeared as a witness and has supported the version of the petitioner. PW 4 is the uncle of the petitioner. He has stated that the father of the petitioner is very old and is not physically capable to walk about. He has further stated that Panchayats were held to bring about reconciliation between the parties. The respondent was asked by the members of Panchayat that he should give proper food and clothing’s to the petitioner and also should not give her beatings. In reply thereto the respondent is alleged to h