Point of Law: When a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty is considered, Court must bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of petition for divorce. Before a conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty

ORDER :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. This is plaintiff's appeal under section 19 of Family Court's Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") arising out of judgment and decree dated 15.05.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Etawah in Case No. 199 of 2002 (Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Suman Yadav) under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") whereby, marriage petition filed by Plaintiff-Appellant for divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' has been dismissed. We may mention here that copy of decree dated 15.05.2010 has not been appended alongwith memo of appeal nor same has been filed subsequently. We therefore have examined original record to ascertain the same. Since decree dated 15.05.2010 passed by Court below is on record, we have proceeded with the matter.

2. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant') and Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Defendant-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent').

3. According to plaint allegations, marriage of Appellant was solemnised with respondent on 09.02.1999 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage Respondent came to her matrimonial home. However, according to Appellant, Respondent failed to discharge her spousal obligations and caused mental cruelty to Appellant. Allegation of cruelty alleged to have been committed by Respondent was sought to be substantiated by alleging that Respondent by her acts has not allowed Appellant to live in peace. She has started neglecting parents as well as brothers and sisters of Appellant. She also misbehaved with family members of Appellant. She also insulted Appellant in front of his friends. In spite of repeated request, there was no change in the attitude and conduct of Respondent. As such, Respondent caused mental cruelty upon Appellant. It was also alleged that conduct of Respondent was never smooth and cordial with Appellant. Repeatedly, Respondent uttered bad words against Appellant. Whenever, relatives of Appellant came to his house, Respondent insulted Appellant. She never prepared tea and snacks for guests nor she ever cooked food properly. Even on trivial issues, she would indulge in exchange of hot words. Such conduct has become a daily routine on the part of Respondent resulting in commission of mental cruelty upon Appellant and his family members. Family members of Appellant as well as Appellant attempted to pacify respondent, but no heed was paid by her. As long as Respondent stayed at her matrimonial home at Math, she repeatedly insulted Appellant and his family members. After a few days, Appellant took Respondent to IFFCO Township, Anwla, in the hope and belief that Respondent will behave properly. Contrary to aforesaid belief, conduct of Respondent toward Appellant became bad, day by day. It is also alleged that though Appellant and Respondent stayed together at IFFCO Township. Anwla, but no conjugal relation was established between parties as Respondent always refused to establish physical relation. According to Appellant, Respondent persistently stated that her marriage has wrongly been solemnized with Appellant contrary to her wishes and therefore, she did not establish physical relation with Appellant. As such Appellant was under mental stress for long period. On account of aforesaid conduct, time and again altercations took place. Respondent consistently threatened to falsely implicate Appellant in criminal cases regarding dowry. Parents of Respondent were also informed about aforesaid conduct of Respondent. They came and also tried to console Respondent in the belief that everything will get alright with passage of time, and left Appellant's home. On 25.05.2000, Respondent assaulted Appellant, but to save himself Appellant locked himself in a room. Appellant is alleged to have come out of room at 11.00 PM but even thereafter Respondent assaulted Appellant. It is further alleged th