Mental cruelty, as defined in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, [1994(1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 74 (S.C.) = I (1993) DMC 435 (SC)], is conduct that inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. This is wifes appeal which is directed against the judgment dated October 29, 1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The learned Additional District Judge granted divorce on the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The husband at the time of his marriage was a practising Chartered Accountant at Faridabad and the wife was a Doctor in medicine. They were tied in the matrimonial bonds on February 11,1989 by solemnising the marriage according to Hindu rites at Kosi Kalan, district Mathura in Uttar Pradesh. The parties were pursuing their studies at Agra in the year 1984-85 where they became friendly and prior to their marriage, they had been exchanging letters with each other. Ultimately, they were married, as mentioned already, in February 11, 1989. Unfortunately, this marriage did not prove a success and within one and a half year of the marriage, the husband filed the present petition seeking divorce out of which this appeal has arisen. The broad allegations of cruelty on the strength of which marriage was sought to be dissolved by a decree of divorce may be noticed as under.

2. The husband alleged that the wife did not allow him to consummate the marriage right from day one till the date of filing the petition and whenever he desired to consummate the marriage, be that at Faridabad, Agra or Mussorie, the latter flatly refused to have an access to her person inspite of his pursuation that it was an essential aspect of married life. But all the times, the wife showed her repugnance and even on some occasions used abusive language, as a result the husband suffered mental agony and shock. She ultimately went to Russia in November, 1989 without the consent, permission or knowledge of the husband. It was also pleaded that he did not know her address in Russia as she did not correspond with him. It was thus pleaded by the husband that all the acts of the wife amounted to cruelty against him and he was entitled to seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The allegations as levelled in the petition were stoutly denied by the appellant-wife by filing a lengthy written statement. She refuted almost all the vital allegations. It was pleaded by her that the parties to the marriage consummated the marriage at Faridabad and Agra where they stayed in hotels and the relationship of husband and wife continued between them without any interruption or displeasure on the part of either of the spouses. The allegation of mental agony or shock was thus denied. The wife asserted that the tenure of her studies in the USSR was of a short duration which was arranged with full knowledge and consent of her husband. She further stated in her written statement that it was wrong to say that there was any such conduct on her part which could inflict any sort of cruelty to her husband. She stated that she gave prior information of her visit to India to her husband. It was also denied that she did not visit the husband or his family members during her visits to India. Rather she pleaded that after her return from the USSR, her husband started maltreating her by threatening that he would get himself married again and desert her and ever since then her husband had not allowed her to stay with him. Besides denying the allegations taken in the petition, the wife specifically pleaded that her husband had openly declared that somehow or the other, he would get her divorced by means whatsoever at his command.

3. The husband filed replication controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating those taken in the petition. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce, on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ?