The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cruelty' in matrimonial cases, emphasizing the absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses as a form of cruelty, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relevant cases.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This FAO (HMA) is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2015, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-II, Una, H.P. in HMA No. 31 of 2012.

2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the appellant for dissolution of marriage. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.10.2011 at Village Sapouri, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P. according to Hindu rites and customs. The parties started living together at the house of the respondent at village Malahat, Tehsil and Distt. Una, H.P. According to the averments contained in the petition, after 10 days of the marriage, the respondent-wife started quarreling and misbehaving with the family members of the respondent. The efforts of the respondent and his relatives to make the appellant understand did not bear any fruit. In the second week of December, 2011, a Khangi Panchayat was called at the instance of the respondent, which tried to persuade the appellant but she after some time refused to fulfill her matrimonial obligations and duties. The appellant packed up her belongings to her parental house on 13.4.2012 by advancing threats to the family members of the respondent. The matter was reported by the respondent to the Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat tried to persuade the appellant. Thereafter, another Khangi Panchayat was convened at the instance of the respondent on 19.4.2012. The Panchayat went to Village Sapouri and a mutual compromise was arrived at between the parties. In the meantime, the respondent was constrained to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking resumption of conjugal rights. The appellant lodged FIR under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. The respondent lost his job. The respondent visited his wife at her parental house on 28.11.2012.

3. The petition was contested by the appellant. She denied the averments made in the petition. The gist of the reply filed by the appellant is that the respondent on the instigation of his family members started administering merciless beatings to her on 12.11.2011. However, she did not disclose this incident to anyone. The respondent also demanded Rs. 12 lacs from her mother. It is, in these circumstances, she was compelled to file case under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC against the respondent and his relatives. The respondent has failed to maintain her. She was constrained to file another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. The issues were framed by the learned Addl. District Judge-II, Una on 25.2.2014. The learned Addl. District Judge-II, Una, allowed the petition vide judgment dated 31.8.2015. Hence, this petition.

5. Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate has vehemently argued that his client has neither caused mental nor physical cruelty to the respondent. The learned Addl. District Judge-II, Una has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. He also argued that it is the respondent who has failed to maintain the appellant. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, has supported the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge-II, Una dated 31.8.2015.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment very carefully.

7. Jagtar Singh, PW-1 has led his evidence by filing affidavit. According to the averments contained in the affidavit, he was Vice President of the Gram Panchayat, Malahat. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.10.2011. The appellant has started quarrelling with the respondent and his family members. The respondent has submitted an application before them on 13.4.2012. The Panchayat tried to persuade the appellant to mend her ways. The members of the Panchayat have visited the parental house of the appellant on 19.4.2012. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the applications are submitted to the Secretary. He also admitted that his Pan