The court's interpretation and application of the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a)(i-b)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. Appellant-wife had assailed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in HMA petition No. 30 of 2-6-1987 decided on 28-10-1987.

2. Uncontroverted facts are that the appellant was married with the respondent Arjan Dev on 12-10-1983 at Bhim Nagar, Gurgaon, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage was consummated and appellant gave birth to a female child on 26-12-1984. The child expired after about 1 1/2 months.

3. The respondent filed a petition for divorce under Sec. 13(i) (i-a) (i-b) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of unsoundness of mind, cruelty and desertion. Respondent averred that before marriage, it was not disclosed to him that appellant is of unsound mind. Only after marriage, he came to know of her mental disorder which is incurable. From the very first day of matrimonial life, the appellant behaved in a peculiar way, she was not obedient and declined to cohabit. She does not understand the responsibilities of a house wife. She has no sense of living like a wife in a matrimonial home. She does not wash her hands after answering the call of nature. After taking bath sometime, she does not put on clothes properly. She urinates even outside the house. When she was advised not to behave in this manner, she would start crying and tearing of clothes. Her habit of taking her meals was also eccentric. Sometime, she urinated in her clothes. She is quarrelsome by nature. Sometimes she become violent. Her behaviour is intolerable to the respondent. After the marriage, when a complaint was lodged with the parents of the appellant, her mother promised to get her treated but nothing was done. At the time of delivery, she was taken to hospital by her mother without informing the respondent. When the child became ill, she had left the child at the respondents house and went to her parental home. The child expired due to her negligence and carelessness. She left the matrimonial home in Feb., 1984 since then, she is residing with her parents and has refused to come back to the respondent. Thus, on these counts he prays for dissolution of marriage.

4. The appellant contested the petition, raised preliminary objections about the estoppel, no cause of action and limitation. She denied that she is suffering from any mental disorder or her behaviour was cruel in matrimonial home. She averred that her child died because of the negligence, maltreatment and misconduct of the respondent. She was treated cruelly by her husband. He and his father wanted huge amount in dowry that is the real cause of her misery. In the matrimonial home, she behaved like a dutiful wife. She also denied that her behaviour was abnormal or anti-social. She did not leave the matrimonial home on her own. Rather, the respondent turned her out from his residence on 29-12-1984 after beating her and, thereafter he never came to bring her back. The respondent took her to the hospital for delivery and after delivery also she went to her matrimonial home and therefrom, she was turned out on 29-12-1984. It is also denied that she has withdrawn from the society of the respondent for a continuous period of two years.

5. Parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. Relying on the respondents evidence, the trial Court held that the respondent has proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion and, thus, the decree of dissolution of marriage was passed.

6. Appellants learned counsel contended that the trial Court has correctly held that the respondent has failed to prove that the appellant is suffering from any mental disorder but despite this finding the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Even if it is to be believed that the appellant behaved in the way in which the respondent has alleged, that behaviour of the appellant does not amount to cruelty vis-a-vis the respondent. Afte