The main legal point established is that general allegations of cruelty are insufficient to warrant a divorce, and unfounded allegations of adultery do not amount to cruelty. Additionally, subsequent events can be considered in determining the existence of cruelty.

M. JEYAPAUL, J.

1. Appellant-husband Dinesh Kotwal has challenged the dismissal of his petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The respondent-wife Anju Kotwal has challenged in her X-objections the rejection of her application praying for dismissal of the petition filed by her husband, the appellant herein, on the ground that cruelty alleged by her husband had been condoned by him during the pendency of proceedings.

2. The brief facts of the petition filed by the appellant are that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized in the month of March, 1981 at Bhopal as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were blessed with one male child on 15.1.1982 and a female child on 15.12.1983. Though the appellant took care of the respondent, the attitude of the respondent was indifferent and arrogant towards the appellant. The respondent had developed hatred towards the appellant and his parents and had been successful in isolating the appellant from his parents. The respondent had been very cunning and selfish. She used to pick up quarrels without any rhyme or reason. In the month of May, 1988, the appellant was transferred to Jodhpur. But the respondent refused to accompany him. The respondent is working as Reiki Healer. She is of dubious and vicious nature. The appellant visited his house at Panchkula during the month of September, 2000. The behaviour of the respondent was abnormal and arrogant and as a result of which the appellant had to abandon his own house and spend the night at railway station before returning to Jodhpur. The respondent came along with daughter born out of the wedlock to Jodhpur and created violent scenes. Even after the appellant was transferred to Chandigarh in the month of May 2001, the respondent did not give any attention to the appellant. She, in fact, completely renounced the world and is dedicated herself to reiki. For all the above reasons the appellant has sought for divorce.

3. The brief averments made by the respondent-wife in the written statement are that she was always respectable to the appellant and his parents. She never committed cruelty as alleged by the appellant. It was only the appellant who committed acts of cruelty. She had been serving and looking after the appellant to the best of her capability. The appellant had not taken his family to Jodhpur on the ground that he did not have a good accommodation at Jodhpur. The respondent had learnt reiki for her own peace, but she never worked as reiki healer. The appellant used to treat the respondent and her children as intruders as and when they visited Jodhpur. On 25.1.2001, when the respondent along with her daughter reached Jodhpur, the appellant did not allow them to enter into his house. They were helped by a neighbour who called the police. The appellant informed the respondent that he wanted to remarry and appealed to the respondent to agree for mutual divorce. He gave some photographs of a lady whom he wanted to remarry. As the respondent did not agree for the proposal of the appellant, she was severely beaten by the appellant. Contending that the appellant had come out with false and frivolous allegations, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. The respondent filed an application during the pendency of the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dismissal of the petition for the simple reason that the appellant had condoned the alleged cruelty. The appellant rejoined the respondent on 22.7.2007. The appellant and the respondent proceeded to Bombay, Shirdi, Alora and Goa from 16.9.2008 to 24.9.2008. The respondent joined the appellant at Lucknow where he had been transferred and lived with him for about 4 days. It was contended by the respondent that the acts of cruelty alleged by the appellant against the respondent had