The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cruelty' in matrimonial cases, emphasizing the need to assess the impact of the alleged conduct on the complaining spouse and the absence of a comprehensive definition of 'mental cruelty.'

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This FAO is directed against the judgment dated 16.3.2015, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Solan, H.P., in H.M. Petition No. 16-S/3 of 2010.

2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the respondent for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.10.2006 according to Hindu rites and customs at Hotel Prashant Inn, Sector 10, Panchkula, Haryana. One daughter, namely, Aasma Bhardwaj was born on 22.2.2008, who is in the custody of the respondent. The petitioner has given the instances of treating him with cruelty by the respondent as per details given in para 3 of the judgment. According to the appellant, these instances have put him under pressure leading to stress. The respondent had also filed complaint before the President AWWA Army Headquarter, New Delhi, whereby she has leveled false allegations of having illicit relations with Captain Mary Joy. These allegations have been leveled by the respondent against the petitioner to socially humiliate and cause mental and physical harassment.

3. The petition was contested by the respondent. She specifically denied the averments made in the petition. According to her, the appellant and his parents have never visited the respondent at the time of birth of girl child. The petition has been filed to cover up his extra-marital affairs with Christian lady Mary Joy, during posting at Aizwl (Mizoram). She was humiliated by the parents of the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry. They had restricted her entry in their house. The major portion of the salary of the petitioner used to remain in the accounts of the parents and the remaining was being spent by the appellant on Mary Joy.

4. The rejoinder was filed by the appellant. The issues were framed by the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Solan, on 3.10.2012. The learned Addl. District Judge-I, Solan, dismissed the petition on 16.3.2015.

5. I have heard Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate for the appellant at length and gone through the impugned judgment very carefully.

6. PW-1 Pankaj Doharoo has no personal knowledge about the relations between the parties. He was told by someone about the strained relationship between the parties. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is hearsay and cannot be given any credence. Similarly, PW-2 Jai Dev has no personal knowledge about the relationship between the parties even though, he was regular visitor to the house of the appellant. PW-3 Ashok Bhardwaj is the brother of the appellant. According to him, the respondent has stayed in the matrimonial house only for 8 to 10 days. He alongwith his parents had to file an application for anticipatory bail. He also admitted that the respondent has filed a complaint with Army Authorities to the effect that the appellant was having extra-marital affairs. He further testified that whenever the parties used to come to Solan, he used to come to Solan from Shimla and the relations between the parties, as per him, were cordial. PW- 5 R.L.Bhardwaj is the father of the appellant. He has not given any specific instance as to on what occasion, he or his wife were abused or harassed by the respondent. He further stated that he and his wife were abused on telephone. He went to the house of the respondent but the house was found locked. The appellant has appeared as PW-6. According to him, on the very first day of marriage, the respondent started abusing his parents and forced him time and again to leave his aged parents and stay with his in-laws house. According to him, his father and mother suffered humiliation when they went to the house of respondent and the door was found locked.

7. There is no evidence led by the appellant that the family of the respondent was informed in advance of their visit to Panchkula. PW-3 Ashok