The judgment established that vague pleadings cannot justify the grant of a divorce decree on the ground of cruelty, and that instances of cruelty may be condoned if the parties resume cohabitation.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant in Matrimonial Suit No 41/55 of 1997-2001 on the file of the Principal Judge, family Court, Jamshedpur, Singhbhum east.

( 2 ) THE defendant challenges the decree for divorce granted by the Family Court under section 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage act.

( 3 ) INSOFAR as it is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, the husband, the petitioner before the Family Court, came up with a case that his wife was behaving cruelly towards him; that she was not preparing and serving food to him; that she was quarrelsome, that she left him without telling him and started living in her fathers house and that she had behaved cruelly towards him, his mother and his widowed sister-in-law. Since, her conduct was such as to amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, he was entitled for a decree for divorce.

( 4 ) THE wife denied that she had behaved cruelly towards her husband. She, on the other hand, pleaded that her husband had ill-treated her and that he was not entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court granted a decree for divorce almost solely based on the assertions made by the husband in his evidence as A. W. 3. This decree is challenged in this appeal.

( 5 ) WE were taken elaborately through the pleadings and the evidence of the witnesses by counsel appearing in the case. The judgment under appeal was also read out to us. On the face of it, we find that the Family court has ignored the elementary principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Siddik mahomed Shekh v. Mt. Saren, AIR 1930 PC 57 that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. In our view, a reading of the plaint in this case would compel a Court to hold that there is no adequate pleading making out a case of cruelty so as to attract Section 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Even apart from this, neither the evidence of the mother of the husband, examined as A. W. 2, nor the evidence of maternal uncle of the husband, examined as A. W. 1, is enough to find any cruelty. In fact, a reading of the evidence of a. W. 2, the mother of the husband, clearly shows that except some normal misunderstandings between a wife and a husband, there was nothing particularly wrong with the marriage of the appellant and the respondent in this case. The mother has stated that she does not want his son to divorce the lady. Of course, she has also stated that she was deposing as instructed by her son. The uncle as A. W. 1 has only stated that sometimes the wife was not very cooperative. He has also not referred to any specific act of cruelty on the part of the wife. The husband, examined as A. W. 3, has spoken to the fact that his in-laws, particularly the father and brother of the appellant before us, had assaulted him, on a previous occasion. He has also stated that the wife did not take pains to cook for him or to feed him and was not even inclined to live with him separately in a flat purchased for establishing the matrimonial home. He also gave evidence to the effect that she was behaving cruelly towards him and she was always subjecting him to cruelty. She was in the habit of going to her fathers house even without his permission. He has also spoken to the fact that a prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was launched against him, his mother, sister and his sister-in-law and he had to remain in custody for a period on the basis of that complaint. He also stated in his evidence that the wife got pregnant, apparently, some time in April, 2000 and that she had an abortion on 20-7-2000 without his consent or volition.

( 6 ) WHAT emerges from the evidence of the husband is that though there was, according to him, certain acts which amount to cruelty on the part of the wife, like not cooperating with him in establishing a matrimonial home, in not attending to his needs, not serving him food when he came back from office and