Cruelty, as a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, requires the petitioner to show that the respondent has treated him/her with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with other spouse.

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. This is letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 272 M of 1995 allowing the husbands appeal and granting his petition for divorce dissolving his marriage by decree of divorce with Smt. Rupinder Kaur, the appellant (herein).

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

Gurjit Singh Sandhu (husband) filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by Marriage Laws Amendment Act 68 of 1976 against his wife Smt. Rupinder Kaur seeking dissolution of his marriage with her by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged by the husband that marriage took place on 9.10.1978 between them. She treated him with cruelty. She was short tempered and was creating fuss and scenes in the matrimonial home. She refused to serve him and his relations. She was disrespectful to him and his parents (after the death of her father). She was disrespectful to him and his mother. She, her mother and brothers had been putting pressure on her to live separate from his parents. It was not possible for her to accede to this request as he was to maintain his old and infirm parents, two younger sisters, one younger brother and his own two sons. On his refusal to accede to this request she deserted him and went to her parents, stayed with them for months together. She thus neglected him and her children. She took to this attitude after a year of her marriage. She stayed with him only for 1-1/2 years after marriage. After her fathers death she became pawn in the hands of her brothers and mother as it was her father who could advise her into putting up in the matrimonial home and serving her husband and children. After the death of her father she compelled him to provide some financial support to her brothers who were unemployed. He continued tolerating her behaviour towards him which was unbecoming of a dutiful wife in the hope that with the passage of time, she would mend her behaviour towards him. He did not take any precipitating steps lest his marriage should be wreacked. Her brothers marriage took place on 31.1.1982. He gave Rs. 5000/- for her brother on account of his marriage. She went to her parents house to attend her brothers marriage. She took 20-22 tolas of gold ornaments with her promising that she would return those ornaments after marriage. After marriage she did not return those ornaments. She returned to the matrimonial home without those ornaments. Since 8.4.1982, she has been putting up at her parental home. She has deserted him. Intervention of the Panchayat has not succeeded in bringing her back to the matrimonial home. Her brother has warned him that he would kill his entire family and set on fire their house. Due to the threats given by the wifes family there is reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be injurious for him to put up with her in the matrimonial home. In January, 1983, 6/7 persons came to their house armed with deadly weapons and they threatened that he would be shot dead. For 15/20 minutes they created unruly scene. He was saved by the P. Was and the inhabitant of the locality.

3. Rupinder Kaur (wife) contested this petition urging that she never treated her husband with cruetly nor she ever deserted him. She never showed disrespect to him or his parents. She or her patents never put pressure upon him to live separate from his parents. The fact of the matter is that the husband was actuated by greed and avarice pressurising her to claim her share in her late fathers property. To secure that end he started maltreating/manhandling her. He threw her out of the matrimonial home when she could not oblige him. It was denied that he ever gave financial assistance to her brothers. It was denied that she took any gold ornaments to her parents on the occasion of her brothers marriage. She was all along anxious to put up in the matrimonial home, cohabi