Cruelty, as a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, includes conduct that causes reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant/wife is directed against the judgment dated 30th January, 1996 in Civil Suit No. 38-A/1993 by III Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby the application of the plaintiff/husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short) has been allowed and a decree of divorce between the parties has been granted.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTABLY, both the parties are Hindus. Their marriage was solemnised on 5-7-1987 at Naharpara, Raipur, according to the Hindu rites and customs. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock on 20-12-1991. The parties thereafter resided together in different localities at Raipur.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondent/husband was that initially after the marriage, he was residing with the defendant/wife at Naharpara, Raipur. His wife started misbehaving and ill-treating him after 8-10 months of marriage. She used abusive language against the respondent husband and his family members. In the month of August, 1988, the defendant/wife refused to cook. When the husband/respondent questioned her, he was slapped by the wife. The husband/plaintiff complained to the parents of the defendant/wife about the misconduct as above of his wife, but the parents of the wife encouraged the defendant/wife. The defendant was adamant and told her husband, the plaintiff, that her mother also beats her father and that she is not competent to advise the defendant. Situation continued to worsen. The defendant/wife would hurl abuses at the plaintiff/husband and would also assault him, resulting in great humiliation and torture to the plaintiff/husband. The plaintiff/husband tried to pacify his wife, the defendant through some common friends and well-wishers. However, he did not meet with success. The husband/plaintiff was ridiculed by the persons of his locality and remarks were passed against him regarding the ill-treatment meted out to him by his wife, the appellant/defendant. He was forced to shift to Katore-Talab, another locality at Raipur. However, his wife, the defendant continued to abuse and beat him at Katora-Talab, Raipur also. In the month of February, 1992, the defendant/wife beat the plaintiff/husband and when the plaintiff/husband thought of complaining the matter to the police, his wife threatened that she would throw their daughter and kill her and would falsely involve her husband, the plaintiff for killing the baby. The wife repeated her misbehaviour as above in the month of June, 1992.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff/husband had once lodged the report of the misbehaviour as above of his wife at P. S. Civil Lines, Raipur, but instead of taking proper action against the wife, police registered a case against the petitioner/husband u/ss. 107 and 116 of the Cr. P. C. , in which the husband/plaintiff was required to execute bond before the Magistrate. The plaintiff/husband also averred that his wife used to give household articles to her relatives without informing and seeking his permission. On account of quarrels and misbehaviour of the wife, the husband/plaintiff was required to live separately from his family members and in December, 1992, he shifted to a rented accommodation at Lodhipara, Raipur and started residing there. He also opened a small Kirana Shop there in the hope that living separately with his wife would bring peace in the household. However, this hope was also shattered as his wife continued to misbehave, abuse and assault the husband at Lodhipara, Raipur also.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff/husband averred that the constant harassment and misbehaviour as above by his wife amounted to cruelty. He, therefore, sought a decree of divorce u/s. 13 (1) (i-a) of the 'act'.

( 6 ) THE defendant/wife denied the above allegations. According to her, the plaintiff and his family members used to pass remarks against the defendant/wife every now and then, and were asking her to bring more dowry. It has been denied that she was misbehaving or assa