The main legal point established in the judgment is that a broken marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the definition of cruelty must be carefully construed in light of the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

M.M.S. Bedi, J. - The appellant -wife has filed this first appeal against the decree of divorce granted to the respondent- husband vide judgment and decree dated January 21, 2016.

2. Briefly stated the respondent had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for short 'the Act', claiming that the marriage was solemnized on February 5, 1998 and after marriage a male child Dikshant Chawla was born on September 23, 2002. The appellant treated the respondent with mental cruelty. Two months after the marriage the respondent- husband left for Canada and in his absence the appellant started misbehaving with the parents of the respondent and she started treating them with cruelty. The behaviour of the appellant was cruel to the mother of the respondent as such his mother committed suicide on June 15, 1998. The maternal uncle of respondent was in Germany at that time. He lodged a complaint with the authorities in India from Germany that his sister has committed suicide on account of the conduct of the appellant. The investigation was conducted in the suicide of the mother of the respondent. All the persons connected with the family held that the appellant was responsible for abetting the commission of the suicide by the mother of the respondent. In order to save the skin from criminal prosecution, the appellant sought pardon from the people of mohalla. Appellant also felt sorry for her act. The respondent and his father consoled themselves with the hope that better sense might prevail with the appellant and things might improve. The respondent had to go back to Canada for his job. The appellant expressed her desire that she should be allowed to keep her younger sister, namely, Nikka in the house at Garhshanker because her father was not in a position to give education to her due to paucity of funds. The respondent agreed to this and spent huge amount on the welfare, maintenance and education and other necessities of the family of the appellant. When the respondent reached Canada, he arranged for the immigration of the appellant to Canada. The appellant lived in Canada happily for few days but later on she started troubles for the respondent with a motive that her entire family should be called to Canada. The respondent was not in a good financial position to sponsor the entire family of the appellant. The respondent had requested the appellant that she should undertake a job but she did not care. Thereafter the appellant started pressurizing the respondent for going back to India permanently. The respondent had to yield to the pressure and they came back to India in 2000. A male child was born on September 23, 2002. After the birth of the child, the appellant had gone to Garhshankar and resumed cohabitation but she started misbehaving and maltreating the father of the respondent. The appellant raised a categoric demand that the entire family property of the respondent should be transferred in her name and threatened that failure to do so can result into serious consequences. Thereafter the appellant got a false case registered against the respondent and his father. The father of the respondent could not bear this act of the appellant as such he suffered brain stroke in July 2004 and ultimately died on November 9, 2004. The death of the father of the respondent is attributed to the appellant on account of the mental cruelty caused by her to the respondent. A criminal case bearing FIR No. 75 dated June 5, 2004 which was got registered by the appellant was cancelled by the Court of Sh.Harjinder Pal Singh, SDJM, Garhshanker. On August 8, 2011 at about 12.40 PM, the respondent appeared before the Court of Sh.A.S. Virk, ADJ, Ludhiana, and in the Court itself the appellant insulted the respondent by using derogatory language against him and his sister Santosh. The respondent requested the Presiding officer that the conduct of the appellant in the Court had caused crue