The main legal point established in the judgment is that cruelty as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, may encompass both mental and physical cruelty, and the impact on the aggrieved spouse's ability to live with the other spouse is crucial in determining the validity of the claim.

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Vide judgment dated 17.2.2012 grant of decree of divorce to the respondent-wife in her petition against the appellant-husband on the ground of cruelty, has brought the husband to this Court in appeal against the same.

2. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.11.2002 at Gharaunda (District Karnal) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, the parties to this litigation had been living together. A daughter named Ms. Anishka was born out of this wedlock on 22.8.2003 at Karnal.

3. Stand of the respondent-wife was that despite having spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- by her parents on dowry in the marriage, neither husband nor his family members were satisfied and rather they had been demanding a Santro car and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the wife and that failure on this count had brought miseries for her as the husband had been maltreating and beating her quite often.

4. Giving specific instances of cruelty by the appellant-husband and his family members, it was claimed that an attempt was made to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her which attempt was foiled due to God sent arrival of Balram Gupta, brother-in-law of the husband, who then saved her. Matter was reported to the police by her parents vide Diary No.1236 dated 7/8.9.2007 of S.P./CIA. There was upheaval in the family of the wife resulting in convening of a Panchayat by her father at the residence of the husband, wherein relatives and respectables of the parties had discussed and debated the turmoil in the matrimonial life of the wife, wherein the husband and his family members had admitted their guilt and had rather assured of no harassment to the wife in future. There was peace for some time in the matrimonial home but the respondent-husband started harassing and beating the wife again and returned to his old style of managing and controlling the matrimonial home resulting in restless days and sleepless nights for the wife, who all through was at the receiving end.

5. It is further case of the respondent-wife that when the situation became intolerable any further, her father again convened a Panchayat on 14.12.2007 at his house, where members of families of the parties accompanied by close relations and respectables had also participated. This time husband and his family members had been tough and openly reiterated their demand of Santro car and of cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Father of the wife paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the husband and his family members in presence of his brother-in-law Balram Gupta. Though she was kept nicely for some time thereafter but again the situation went the same way. She was severely beaten up on 15.4.2008 when she maintained that her parents were not in a position to fulfil their demand of car and cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Sequelly, she was turned out of the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter, whereafter she had been living with her parents since 15.4.2008.

6. Appellant-husband had contested the petition tooth and nail, where denial of each and every allegation made by the wife against him had been made. Controverting allegations of the wife, it was, inter alia, pleaded that she was a lady of dictatorial attitude and was neither co-operative nor was of positive thinking, and rather had been creating problems of different kinds for the husband and his family members. It was asserted that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and without any reasonable cause and thus deserted the marriage. It was claimed that the husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Act) and was ready to maintain the wife. Allegations made by the wife were claimed to be concocted and false.

7. Telling his side of the story, the appellant-husband had mentioned that the respondent-wife had been residing most of the time at her parental house and had been leaving the matrimonial home without any intimation much