The main legal point established in the judgment is that cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act encompasses both physical and mental cruelty, and the concept of condonation is conditional and does not amount to absolute forgiveness. The judgment also highlights the relevance of the principle of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in deciding whether to grant a divorce.

1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgment and decree dated 26-8-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby petition of the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Act on the ground of cruelty had been allowed.

2. This is rather an unfortunate case where matrimonial alliance between the parties settled by way of an advertisement in the newspaper, though made a good start but ran into rough weather just within a period of less than two years thereafter. The budding couple, soon after the marriage, which was solemnised on 9-8-1992 at Chandigarh as per Sikh rites through Anand Karaj in the presence of respectables and relatives of the parties, entertained high hopes and aspirations and they were not only hoping but were anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual love and devotion. They were even blessed with a daughter, named Jaspreet Kaur on 29-4-1993. But the circumstances took an ugly turn and dragged the couple to the door of the Court, initiation, however, was made by the husband, respondent herein who approached the Court by filing a petition for dissolution of marriage.

3. The woeful tale of the couple which surfaced on the record in the shape of facts is somehow lengthy, which however, can be summarised in the following manner. FIRST THE HUSBAND S ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION

4. Soon after the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife in the joint family. After the appellant became pregnant in the month of September, 1992, she started showing gestures or indifference, disrespect and occasionally misbehaving. She started insisting upon the respondent to walk out of the joint family. This demand of the appellant sent waves of shock not only to the respondent but his parents as well especially when, as per respondent s case, it had been made clear to the appellant before hand that she will have to reside in the joint family. When the respondent and his family did not yield to the wish of the appellant, she became rude, short-tampered and more disrespectful to the respondent and his parents. The appellant left for her parental house at Ludhiana in the first week of March 1993 after taking maternity leave despite the fact that the respondent had made all possible arrangements for the expected delivery of the appellant. After the birth of a female child, the appellant returned to her matrimonial home and again started insisting the respondent to set up his residence separately from his parents, which the respondent could not afford being deeply attached to his parents. The situation was aggravated more when the appellant stopped taking any interest in the household work and listening to anybody s advice. Not only this, she even started ignoring the newly born child. Even the father of the appellant, instead of advising the appellant, used to instigate her for forcing the respondent to have a separate home. As and when the respondent visited his in-laws house, he was shabbily treated and humiliated.

5. On 12-9-1993, it is further stated in the petition, the parties came back from Ludhiana, but the appellant created a scene at the Bus Stand at Chandigarh when she refused to go to the respondent s parents house. This incident created a mental cruelty to the respondent. This incident was reported by the appellant to her father on phone who along with some bad elements reached respondent s house on 13-9-1993 to criminally intimidate the respondent and his family.

6. On 15-9-1993, father of the appellant took the latter and the newly born child to Ludhiana for two/three days but the appellant did not return and got her leave extended. The father of the appellant then started making a number of complaints to the police authorities against the family of the respondent. On investigation, the allega