The legal principle established is that to claim a matrimonial relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the conduct of the respondent must be of such a nature as to cause danger to the petitioner's life, limb, or health, and that the mental cruelty must be of such a nature as to make it impossible for the wronged party to continue living with the other party.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. There is a delay of 13 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal. Civil miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is accordingly allowed.

2. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act for short) has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the petition of the appellant-husband for seeking divorce from the respondent-wife has been dismissed.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnised at Faridabad in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 19.8.1996. From the marriage, the parties had a female child. The appellant-husband on 19.5.1999 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad after considering the evidence and material on record, as already noticed, dismissed the petition. It was observed that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. Besides, there was no desertion on her part. The said order of the Additional District Judge, as already noticed, is assailed in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Additional District Judge has gravely erred in dismissing the petition of the appellant for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by way of decree of divorce. It is further contended that the parties to the marriage are admittedly living separately since 9.2.1997 and that the respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable and sufficient cause on 9.2.1997 on which date she left her matrimonial home with all her belongings. Besides, it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge has not adverted to the compromise (Ex.P-6) in pursuance of which it is established that the marriage between the parties is a broken marriage and that is why by virtue of the compromise divorce between the parties on payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent was agreed to be settled in the Panchayat which was also signed by the parties. In fact, in furtherance to the compromise (Ex.P-6), it is contended that Rs. 50,000/- was paid on the day the compromise was reduced into writing and Rs. 4 lacs was agreed to be paid in Court and out o the same Rs. 2,50,000/- was to be deposited in the name of female child of the parties and Rs. 2 lacs was to be given to the respondent. Besides, the filing of petition under Section 9 of the Act by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was a bona fide act on his part and it is the respondent who did not join his company.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on the fact that the respondent had lodged a complaint on the basis of which case F.I.R. No. 385 dated 15.6.1999 was registered and that this by itself is a ground which proves that the appellant and his family members were subjected to cruelty by the respondent and on this account alone the appellant was entitled to a decree for divorce. Besides, the proceedings under Section 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the appellant at the behest of the respondent.

6. It is appropriate to note that the appellant had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act which was withdrawn by him on 20.3.1999 by stating that he had no differences with his wife and both could live together. The present petition, as already noticed, was filed on 19.5.1999. In the circumstances, the cruelty which has been alleged against the respondent is in respect