ALLEGED ACTS OF CRUELTY MUST BE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER SPOUSE TO LIVE HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE FIRST SPOUSE IN THE MATRIMONIAL HOME.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. This wifes appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) assailing the divorce decree granted in favour of the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty.

2. Adumberated facts of the case are that the appellant-wife was married to respondent-husband on April 4,1982, in Village Talwandi Badashpur. Thereafter the couple lived at Hisar. Appellant gave birth to a daughter Saroj in this wedlock. Now the parties are living separately.

3. The respondent-husband filed divorce petition on August 2,1989, alleging that from the very beginning of the marital life respondents behaviour was not good towards him or his parents. She is a lady of quarrel-some nature and used to quarrel with him as well as with his parents on small matters. She also used to abuse him and his parents. Whenever he asked her to behave property, she used to threaten him to commit suicide and to implicate him and his parents therein. She used to desert the respondent-husband off and on and finally in June, 1987 she left the matrimonial home in his absence. Since then she is living in her parental home despite many efforts made by him to bring her back. Thus, the husband claimed divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

4. Appellant-wife denied the allegations of alleged cruelty and desertion. According to her, she always performed her matrimonial duties as a loyal and legally wedded wife, but her husband and his parents were not satisfied. They used to tease and taunt her for bringing inadequate dowry. They demanded more cash and jewellery from her parents. Ultimately in April, 1984 she was forced to bring Rs. 5,000/- from her parents, which she brought and gave to the respondent-husband. Even thereafter respondent-husband used to mal treat her as she could not bring more dowry from her father. Sometimes she was kept hungry and locked in the matrimonial house. In August, 1994 she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Her father convened a Panchayat, but the respondent-husband was adamant. Her father convened another Panchayat in May, 1985. At that time respondent-husband demanded T.V., Fridge, V.C.R. and Rs. 10,000/- in cash. The third Panchayat was convened on October 5,1986, but to no effect. No February 20,1987, she lodged a complaint against the respondent-husband and his relations under Sections 406/498-A, IPC in the Court of A-C.J.M., Hissar, whereupon the accused persons were summoned. One February 26,1987, a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the Police Station and on his assurance she went back to her matrimonial home. After a short while, she was again tortured by the respondent-husband. In December, 1987 she gave birth to a female child, which further infuriated the respondent-husband and he started demanding Rs. one lac for the upbringing and marriage of the said daughter. On January 7,1989, she was again turned out of the matrimonial home after being beaten. She got herself medically examined. The police summoned the respondent-husband. Panchayat was also convened. The husband assured that he would not maltreat the appellant-wife. Thereafter she again went back to her matrimonial home, but the husband again started treating her cruelly and asked her to bring Rs. 10.000/- from her parents. She gave him Rs. 10,000/- but ultimately on July 23,1989, she was again turned out of the matrimonial home. Since then she is living in her parental house.

5. On these pleadings, issues were framed. The parties evidence was recorded.

6. The Matrimonial Court disbelieved the respondent-husbands evidence so far as the ground of desertion is concerned. It held that the appellant-wife treated the respondent-husband with cruelty. Her cruel acts as well as filing of the criminal complaint against him gave him mental torture as well. Hence on this count the divorce petition was allowed on May 7,1992. On May, 29,1992, appellant-wife filed this appeal but before tha