A spouse's conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it will be harmful or injurious to live together constitutes cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been preferred by the wife against her husband against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1994, passed by Smt. Manjusha Namjoshi, the then Seventh Additional Judge to the District Judge, Gwalior, whereby a decree for divorce was passed against the appellant on the petition of the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the parties were married according to Hindu rites at Gwalior on 4-12-1977 and out of the union, three sons, namely, Pankaj, Kapil and Ravi were born. The relationship between the parties was cordial and the couple was regarded as a respectable family. At the time of marriage, the petitioner's mother-in-law was residing at Nai Sadak, Lashkar, but later on, she started living in the first floor of the house of the petitioner which he tolerted in order to avoid any unpleasantness. One Mohan Sindhi used to visit the house of the respondent's mother. Respondent too had developed great intimacy with him. Respondent had a good physique and was also beautiful. She was employed in the U. Co. Bank, High Court Road Branch, Gwalior, as a Clerk. Mohan Sindhi alias Teku has got bad reputation and is involved in unsocial activities and held a bad character. He has an evil eye on the respondent. Respondent was also attracted towards him. He used to visit the house of the respondent's mother practically daily in the night and used to sit there for long and used to call the respondent also. Sometimes respondent herself, out of her own accord, used to go to her mother's portion and that for long. They also cut jokes and indulged in obscene talks. The petitioner forbade her several times and also called her, but she gave a dry reply and continuedto talk with Mohan Sindhi till late at night. Thus, there was great apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. In spite of his insistence, the respondent did not mend herself. She was not ready to hear him. The respondent ignored the petitioner's old mother as well as the petitioner and also insulted him before Mohan Sindhi. She also specifically refused to have marital relations. The petitioner moved the Pujjya Sindhi Hindu General Panchayat in which all concerned including Mohan Sindhi were made to understand, but to no effect. On 1-2-1991, at about 12. 00 in the night, Mohan Sindhi alias Teku called the petitioner and abused him. He was also beaten. A knife was kept on his chest and he was threatened because he had made a complaint in the Sindhi Panchayat and insulted him. When the petitioner asked the respondent, she said that whatsoever Mohan Sindhi was doing was correct. The respondent also lodged a report on 26-4-1991 in Mahila Thana, Padav against the petitioner and his mother on wrong allegations which caused a great harassment to him and he had to obtain bail. The respondent and her mother got a pamphlet in the name of "papa Sudhar Jaiye", published and got it distributed in the High Court building as well as Phalka Bazar where the petitioner has his clinic and at several other placed in order to insult him. It brought bad name to him. Due to the activities of the respondent, he received mental agony and his life had become a moving dead-body. The relations of the respondent with Mohan Sindhi were so developed that they started a great mental tension. He was not in a position to carry on his medical profession as well. He was also defamed in the Society. On 27th August, 1990, the respondent left petitioner's house along with her articles and sons and started living with her mother in the first floor without any justifiable cause. She was not performing her marital obligations though he had been ready to keep her, but he failed. A notice was also given to respondent, but she did not obey.

( 3 ) THE respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner and alleged that the treatment the petitioner and his mother was cruel. She did accept the illegal demands and hence, the