A wife's refusal to undergo medical treatment advised by a doctor does not amount to cruelty, but her unkindness to the child, false accusations against the husband, and refusal to cook meals for the family do amount to cruelty.

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J.

1. The husbands petition for a decree of divorce having been rejected by the trial Court and the learned single Judge, he has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

2. The parties are Hindus. They were married on April 30, 1974. They had no issue. In July 1986, a six month old male child was adopted by mutual consent. Still, the relations between the parties did not improve. On June 8, 1988, the husband filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . It was inter alia alleged that soon after marriage, the respondent had started treating him with "mental as well as physical cruelty." She was got medically examined at PGI, Chandigarh. She was advised surgery. She refused to get herself treated. She alleged that the petitioner-appellant wanted her to be "liquidated in collusion with doctors." She suffered from tuberculosis. She was got treated even for that. When a child was adopted in July 1986 with the consent of the respondent, she started even "treating the child with cruelty. For her it was a routine matter to beat the child whenever he wept or made the bed wet." Ultimately, the appellant had to start feeding the child with a bottle and to wash his clothes himself. The life became miserable. The respondent treated the child as a nuisance and prayed for his death.

3. The relations between the parties got further strained. They even stopped talking to each other and started preparing their meals separately. So much so, even the child had to be left at the Creche when the appellant went to the University where he was working as a clerk. Even the appellants old mother had to start living separately in a rented accommodation. The respondent even accused the appellant of "developing bad relations" with any lady in the neighbourhood when he happened to talk to her. As a result, he had to even stop visiting his friends. The two stayed together upto May 1988 but as strangers. It was difficult for the appellant to leave the house as the respondent used to beat the child in his absence. Whenever he went out with the child, she used to bolt the house from inside. If the appellant tried to read or write something, she would switch off the light. Driven by these circumstances, the appellant approached the Court for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.

4. The respondent filed a reply. She raised three preliminary objections, alleging that the appellant wants to solemnise a second marriage; that the allegations in the petition are vague and that he is estopped by his own act and conduct from claiming a decree for divorce. On merits, the respondent alleged that she was medically fit and was not "bound to undergo operation and refusal does not tantamount (to) cruelty". She alleged that "it was a tactic of the petitioner to get rid of her through such treatment. . . . . . ."

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether after solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ? 2. Relief.

6. Finding against the appellant on Issue No. 1, the trial Court dismissed the petition. This view has been affirmed by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal.

7. Mr. Doabia, counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts are vitiated as the pleadings and the evidence on record have not been correctly appreciated. On behalf of the respondent, the claim made by the appellant has been controverted.

8. On examination of the record, it is established that the respondent was suffering from tuberculosis. The appellant had taken care of her. He got her treated. She was cured. Still further, she was having some problem on account of which no child was born to her. The appellant had taken her to the PGI for examination. She was examined by the Gynaecologist. On examination, she was advised leprotomy. A date was given to her. She did not repo