Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not limited to physical violence or threats, but can also include conduct that causes mental agony or makes it incompatible for the spouses to live together. In determining whether conduct amounts to cruelty, the court must consider the status, customs, traditions, and public opinion of the locality in which the parties reside.

Srinivasan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the wife against the decree for divorce granted by the First Additional District Judge at Pondicherry on the ground of cruelty.

2. Admittedly the marriage took place according to Hindu Sastras on 26-6-1975 and a child was born in July 1976. The respondent alleged in the petition for divorce that when the appellant was pregnant, she wanted to go to her parent s house for delivery, but he refused permission due to several domestic reasons. She left the house in May, 1976 without his consent and got herself admitted in the St. Joseph of Cluny Hospital at Pondicherry, The birth of the child was intimated to him only three days thereafter and he went to the hospital to see the child. But, the appellant refused to show the child to him. He was humiliated and distressed by the conduct of the appellant. She issued a notice in August, 1977 demanding from him maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem. He issued a reply notice asking her to resume cohabitation within seven days from the receipt thereof. As she was picking up quarrels with his aged parents he provided a separate residence for her at Vazhaikulam. He had to stay with his parents for some time as they were sick and as there was no one to attend on them. The appellant advised him to resign his job and he refused to do so. The appellant was developing a baseless apprehension in her mind that he was preparing to marry his uncle's daughter, who was already married to another man at Kurinjipadi. The appellant was picking up quarrel with the respondent very often and she left the conjugal home at Vazhaikulam on 5-9-1977 without his consent and knowledge She issued a notice to him demanding maintenance and filed a petition under Section 125 of the Crl. P.C. for maintenance for herself and her child. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pondicherry granted maintenance. The respondent preferred a Revision Petition to the Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry, who allowed the revision in part and set aside the order of maintenance to the appellant on the ground that he offered to take her back and she agreed to resume cohabitation with him. As against that order the appellant filed a revision in the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 675 of 1979. At the time of arguments, a compromise were arrived at and in accordance with the compromise, the respondent established his conjugal home at Pudu Saram at Pondicherry in the month of October 1980 because of non-availability of a separate residence at Pondicherry and because of the festival season at Sinnerkunam. The appellant's father and her brother visited the conjugal home thrice and took her under the pretext that somebody was ill in the village. She left the conjugal home without the consent and knowledge of the respondent on 22nd January 1981 along with the child. He was very much upset and had mental agony because of the conduct of the appellant. Because of the mental agony and torture he was not able to carry on his daily avocation with mental peace She issued a notice on 3-3-1981 making several allegations and accusations against him and charged him for leading an adulterous life with a woman. The false allegations caused further mental agony and torture to the respondent. He apprehended that the intention of the appellant was only to extract money from him by coercive and intimidative methods The conduct of the appellant amounted to Cruelty in law and the appellant was guilty of treating the respondent contemptuously with cruelty On the above allegations, he filed the petition for divorce.

3. The appellant filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition. She stated that she was sent out of the matrimonial home when she was pregnant on the ground that she and the respondent's sister should not see each other after delivery as both were pregnant at the same time. It was the respondent who was at fault and a panchayat had to be convened in November 197