Strained relation between husband and wife could not be adjudicated by even counsels.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1996 in C.M.A. No.54 of 1995 on the file of the principal District Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1995 of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam in O.P.No.18 of 1993.

2. The wife, who is unsuccessful in both the Courts below is the appellant. The respondenthusband filed a petition of divorce under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He has succeeded in both the Courts below. As against the concurrent judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the above appeal has been preferred by the wife.

3. The respondent in his petition O.P.No.18 of 1993 has stated that he married the appellant on 8.7.1987 at Nagoor. The appellant was behaving very cruelly from the beginning. On 15.2.1988 the parents of the appellant came and took her to their house representing that they would be sending her in a day or two. But she did not return. On 24.10.1988 she came with her mother and sister and scolded his mother and sister, standing in the street and created a scene. They left in the next morning spending the night in a third person's house. On 27.10.1988, the respondent sent a notice calling upon her to join with him. On 1.11.1988 there was a reply. On 12.11.1988 the respondent sent a rejoinder. After exchange of notices, there was conciliation between the parties before the respondents counsel on 20.11.1988 and thereafter the appellant was brought to the matrimonial home. But however again on 3.1.1989 she created a scene in the street. Thereafter, her parents came and took her away. In December, 1989, she made a false complaint to the Dowry Cell. Even though there was some compromise on 16.1.1990 and 12.2.1990, and she came and stayed in the house of the respondent for some time, then again on 13.4.1991, she left the house. Again she made a false complaint in 1992. She also complained to the higher officials of the respondent's office. She insulted the respondent in a number of ways. Hence, according to the respondent, she committed cruelty.

4. The appellant's counter states that the marriage took place at Nagoor on 8.7.1987 and thereafter they were living at Dharasuram.But she has denied the allegation of cruelty. She has also stated that she did not behave as alleged by the respondent. On the other hand, she has pleaded that at the instance of his mother and thesister, she was cruelly treated by the respondent. There was no incident as contended by the respondent on 15.2.1988. Her father was a retired teacher. The respondent demanded three more sovereigns of jewel, for which she was treated cruelly. She was also warned that three sovereigns of jewel must be provided within three days, as promised by the father. As there was difficulty, the jewel was not presented. Only because of that the notice dated 27.10.1988 was sent. On 1.11.1988 reply was sent. Thereafter she was taken to the respondent advocate's house. Actually, she was sent out of the house. However, she admitted the muchalica dated 16.1.1990. She has informed about the cruel treatment to her parents on 4.4.1990. Thereafter, she was cruelly treated. Therefore, as the cruelty exceeded the limit, on 13.4.1991 without jewels she went away to her parents house.

5. The trial court considered the issue as to whether there was cruel treatment by the wife to the husband. The trial court considered the cruelty as point No.2 and came to the conclusion that the respondent was treated cruelly by the appellant. The trial court has specifically referred to the style of addressing the husband and the mother-in-law by the appellant with the words "GurrLtr, aim_rr" "^il6ijrr6HBfl'Thetrialcourthas carefully considered the evidence of R.W.2, though claimed to be an independent witness, but said to be the friend of the appellant's father. The main reason for dis-believing his version is that he has not been referred to in the counter. It has also taken into account the complaint of t