ORDER :

[Shree Chandrashekhar, J.]

1. The husband is aggrieved of the judgment dated 18th May 2017 passed in Title Original Suit No. 99 of 2016 by which the suit was dismissed.

2. The appellant is seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 18th May 2017 and the decree prepared, sealed and signed on 27th May 2017 in Title Original Suit No. 99 of 2016.

3. This First Appeal was admitted for hearing by an order dated 15th January 2020 and the lower Court records have been placed before us.

4. The proceedings in Title Original Suit No. 99 of 2016 disclose that summons was issued to the respondent on 22nd November 2016 and substituted service by publication was ordered on 28th November 2016. The order dated 13th January 2017 records that summons against the respondent was published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar”, Koklata Edition, on 14th December 2016. The suit was set ex-parte against the respondent by an order dated 16th February 2017 and the appellant filed his evidence on affidavit on 20th March 2017.

5. The appellant pleaded that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 18th April 1996 and the couple lived as husband and wife at Dhanbad. From the wedlock two sons were born but behaviour of the respondent was violent and cruel during her stay in the matrimonial home. She used to taunt his family members as beggars and threatened to implicate them in a false criminal case. As per the plaint averments, the wife started living separately from 20th December 2008 and inspite of the best efforts taken by the husband she refused to join him in the matrimonial home. According to the appellant, the cause of action for instituting the suit arose on 18th April 1996.

6. Mr. Suraj Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the various acts of cruelty inflicted by the respondent upon the appellant and his family members are not controverted by the respondent during trial of Title Original Suit No. 99 of 2016 and moreover the wife deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause or excuse and therefore the appellant was entitled for a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

7. Ms. Talat Parween, the learned counsel, appears for the respondent.

8. The appellant in his evidence on oath has stated thus;

^^4- ;g fd 'kknh ds ckn tSls gh esjh iRuh llqjky vk;h mldk O;ogkj esjs izfr ,oa esjs ifjokj okyksa ds izfr vPNk ugha jgkA
5- ;g fd esjh iRuh ges'kk eq>s rFkk esjs ekrk firk dks xkyh xykSt djrh Fkh rFkk viuk T;knkrj le; vius ek;ds esa gh jgrh FkhA eSa viuh iRuh ls 30-12-2008 ls vyx jgk jgk gw¡A
6- ;g fd esjh iRuh dk O;ogkj esjs ifjokj okyksa ds izfr vPNk ugha gS og vDlj dgrh Fkh fd rqe yksx Hkh[keax¢ gksA eSa rqEgkjs ?kj esa rqEgkjs lkFk ugha jgw¡xhA^^

English Translation:

“(4) That, as soon as my wife came to matrimonial house after marriage her behaviour towards my family members and me was not good.

(5) That, my wife always abused my parents and me and most of the time she lived at her paternal house. I am living separately from my wife since 30.12.2008.

(6) That, the behaviour of my wife is not good towards my family members and she used to call us beggar. I will not live with you at your residence.”

9. A bare glance at the aforesaid evidence of the appellant would disclose that no specific instance of misbehaviour, misconduct, abuse etc. committed by the respondent has been stated by the appellant. The expression cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been interpreted to mean such unjustifiable conduct of a spouse as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong and their social values, status and environment in which they live. We are