Cruelty in matrimonial law encompasses both physical and mental aspects, with the latter requiring a cumulative assessment of conduct that causes reasonable apprehension of harm to the aggrieved spouse.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an old appeal. On the last date, none had appeared to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, we directed the appeal to be listed peremptorily, today. Sri S. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record notice sent to the counsel for the respondent informing him about the date fixed.

2. List has been revised. None has appeared for the respondent in either call. Accordingly, the appeals have been proceeded.

3. First Appeal No. 447 of 2010 has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 arising from judgment and order dated 23.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, in O.S. No. 57 of 2003 (Smt. Kanchan Dwivedi Vs. Basant Kumar Dwivedi), whereby the learned Court below has decreed the suit proceeding and granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in favour of the respondent. By separate order dated 23.7.2010, passed by District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia in O.S. 286 of 2002, the learned Court below has dismissed the divorce suit instituted by the appellant.

4. We have first heard learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 447 of 2010 arising from decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Relying on the record, learned counsel for the appellant states, it cannot be disputed that the parties were married on 29.4.1992. While the appellant belongs to Haridwar (now in the State of Uttarakhand), the respondent belongs to Ballia, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant is an Engineer by profession. At the time of their marriage, the appellant was residing at Delhi upon his re-employment at Central Public Works Department, New Delhi. On the other hand, the respondent though educated, was not gainfully employed at the time of their marriage. However, she cohabited with the appellant barely for two years. Even during that period, the parties suffered acrimonious relationship. The appeallant attributes cruel conduct to the respondent, inasmuch as she is described to have used foul language towards the appellant and his family members and to have willfully deserted the appellant on many occasions, without prior notice or on false pretext etc. In any case, the respondent permanently deserted the appellant on 8.11.1995, when she moved to her parents’ place at Ballia. She has never cohabited with the appellant since then. 29 years have passed. There are no children born to the parties. Soon after the respondent deserted the appellant, she gained government employment as a Primary Teacher in District Ballia. She has been working in that capacity since then.

6. As to the grounds to oppose the decree of restitution of conjugal rights granted by the learned Court below, learned counsel for the appellant would submit, besides the desertion and cruel behaviour offered by the respondent as has been referred to above, all efforts made by the appellant in the year 1996-97, to revive the matrimonial relationship between the parties, failed. In such circumstances, the appellant filed divorce suit proceeding bearing Petition No. 138 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Haridwar. At the instance of the respondent, upon order passed by the Supreme Court, those proceedings were transferred to Ballia, whereby they came to be numbered as Case No. 286 of 2002.

7. After the institution of the divorce case proceeding and almost 7 years after the marriage between the parties, the respondent first lodged a criminal case bearing Case No. 340 of 1999, under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against the appellant on 6.9.1999, under Section 498A IPC, making malicious and completely false allegations of demand of dowry as also of cruelty. Those allegations are described to be completely false on the strength of oral testimony of the brother of the respondent, Arvind Kumar Pandey. Referring to the statement of the brother of the respondent, namely, Arvind Kumar Pandey, it has been strenuously urged that the said witness completely dispro