The main legal point established in the judgment is that mental cruelty in matrimonial cases is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to behavior or behavioral pattern by the other, and it cannot be established by direct evidence. The court emphasized the need to evaluate each case on its peculiar facts and circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is instituted against judgment and decree dated 23.12.2013 rendered by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 6-S/3 of 13/09.

2. "Key facts" necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.10.2007 as per Hindu rites, in village Kotli (Bir), Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Parties remained together from 26.10.2007 to 11.11.2007, thereafter from 17.11.2007 to 10.12.2007 and finally from 30.12.2007 to 15.3.2008. Respondent filed a petition u/s 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant left the company of the respondent and did not come back after 15.3.2008. Conduct of the appellant has caused mental agony to the respondent. Appellant was not discharging matrimonial obligations as a normal wife. She used to quarrel with the respondent on one pretext or the other. She tried to assault the respondent in the month of November 2007. One Shri Tarun Vaid who was next door neighbour of the respondent, saved the situation. She was giving open threats that she would commit suicide and implicate the whole family of the respondent in false and frivolous litigation. She was not showing due respect to the members of the family of the respondent. According to the respondent, appellant did not want to stay in joint family and disclosed that her marriage was solemnized without her consent and under pressure from her parents.

3. Shri Vishal Mohan PW-3 visited the house of the respondent on 22.11.2007. Appellant started creating scene and did not prepare even tea. She also mis-behaved with the senior of the respondent, PW-3 Vishal Mohan. On 2.12.2007 when a close friend was invited for dinner alongwith his family, appellant did not behave properly and locked herself in her room and threatened to involve the family of the respondent in false cases. On 4.1.2008, she threatened to cut her veins and to consume poison and further threatened that she would leave a suicide note putting entire blame on the respondent and his family members. Matter was brought to the notice of the mother of the appellant on 5.1.2008. Matter was also brought to the notice of the father of the appellant on 12.1.2008. Families of the appellant and respondent met at Palampur to resolve the dispute. On 23.6.2008, father of the appellant again called the parents of the respondent and told that he would visit after a few days. On 25.10.2008, father of the respondent called up at the house of the appellant and asked for the telephone number of the mother of the appellant. However, telephone number was not provided. On 27.12.2008, instead of settling the matter, the father of the appellant threatened the father of the respondent. On 31.12.2008, again father of the appellant used abusive language against the father of the respondent.

4. The petition was contested by the appellant. Appellant has denied all the allegations contained in the petition. She denied that she mis-behaved with the neighbour or the senior of the respondent. she has left matrimonial house with the consent of the respondent and his mother with the assurance that respondent would bring her back after one week. She received a telephone call from the mother of the respondent that she need not come back to Shimla. She denied that she left the company of the respondent at her own, without respondent's consent.

5. Issues were framed by the learned District Judge (Forests) Shimla on 23.12.2013, hence, this petition.

6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra has vehemently argued that the judgment has been passed on conjectures and surmises. According to him, learned District Judge has not taken into consideration that the acts of the appellant did not constitute 'cruelty'. He then contended that the appellant had all the intentions to live with the respondent.

7. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Ad