The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of impotency and cruelty, even if based on reasonable apprehension, constitute mental cruelty and are sufficient grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Appellant/wife is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala allowing the petition filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act).

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the parties were married as per Sikh rites at Chandigarh on 3.4.1990. After the marriage the parties resided together, at Patiala with some interval till 10.2.1992 and there were cordial relations between the parties. After 10.2.1992 appellant/wife never came to live with the respondent and deserted the appellant for more than 4 years immediately before the filing of the petition. No child was born from this wedlock. The respondent/husband was working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board and was posted at Patiala at the time of filing of the petition, whereas the appellant/wife joined as clerk-cum-Cashier on 2.5.1990 in the State Bank of India, Branch Office, Mohali. The appellant used to travel from Patiala to Mohali till December, 1990 in order to attend her office. Thereafter the appellant started visiting Patiala at the end of every week till the date of desertion i.e. 10.02.1992. The case of the respondent further was that he had requested the appellant either to get herself transferred from Mohali to Patiala or take leave for longer period or in the alternative resign, as the appellant had sufficient means to lead a happy married life. Request of the respondent was declined and she continued with her job against the wishes of the appellant. This was said to be cruelty towards the appellant. It was also pleaded case of the respondent that in order to keep matrimonial tie alive he tried to get himself transferred to Chandigarh and submitted an application to his department but his request was declined. In spite of rejection of his request of transfer the appellant continued with the job against the wishes of the appellant. It was claimed that this act of appellant amounted to cruelty and further that the appellant was guilty of desertion.

3. It was also pleaded case of the respondent/husband that even during her stay with the respondent, her attitude towards the respondent was cruel as she used to maltreat and insult the respondent in the presence of his friends and relatives. She used to taunt that the respondent was interested in somebody else and was not interested to keep her. These allegations were said to be false and frivolous. It was also pleaded case that on one occasion the appellant remarked that as respondent did not tie his beard he looked like an owl in the presence of relations and friends. The respondent further alleged that when his friends visited his house during her stay, she never offered even water what to talk of tea and sweets and would start quarreling and calling bad names to the respondent in the presence of relations and friends. The marriage was said to be simple in which no dowry was given by the parents of the appellant, nor it was ever demanded and expected by the respondent. In spite of this the appellant and his father in order to harass the respondent and his parents got registered a false case under Sections 406/498-A/120-B IPC and tried to get him and his parents arrested.

4. On an application moved by the respondent for anticipatory bail he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac as ordered by this Court for payment to the appellant, and it was thereafter, that his application for anticipatory bail was considered and allowed. Amount of Rs. 1 lac was deposited by the respondent by taking loan from G.P.F., friends and relations so as to avail concession of anticipatory bail. Respondent claimed that he was still under debt of his friends.

5. The appellant with the help of police conducted raid on the house of the respondent and all goods lying in the house were removed by the respondent, though the goods belonged to the respon