Mere allegations of cruelty, mental retardation, and deafness without substantial evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

R.P. Awasthy, J.

1. The appellant named above has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 27-7-90 delivered by Shri A.S. Naidu, First Addl. Judge to the court of Distt. Judge, Balaghat. By virtue of the said judgment and decree the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act in short) for granting a decree of divorce against the non-applicant/respondent Smt. Latabai was dismissed.

2. It was not in dispute that the appellant was married to respondent on 1-3-79 at village Sondbar according to Hindu rites. After the marriage (be non-applicant came to reside with the appellant at Balaghat. The father of the non-applicant had purchased a house at village Hirri in which house the petitioner, non-applicant and the parents of the petitioner started residing. At the lime of marriage of non-applicant with the petitioner, the petitioner was studying in II year of Bachelor of Science degree. No issue was born out of the said wedlock. In the year 1983 the petitioner was appointed as teacher and in the year 1985 he was posted as a teacher in High School at village Marai.

3. On 1-2-86 the Panchyat was convened, in which the petitioner expressed that he did not want to keep the non-applicant with him any longer. In the said Panchayat. the non-applicant was not present. The father of the non-applicant was however present in the said Panchayat. The Panchas determined that the father of the non-applicant bad given Rs. 3100/- in cash and articles and ornaments worth Rs. 10909/- were given by the father of the non-applicant to the petitioner in the said marriage. It was further decided that the petitioner would pay Rs. 14009/- to the father of the non-applicant in the first week of January, 1987. However the panchayat could not be convened in the first week of the month of January, 87. It was nevertheless again convened on 9-3-87. In the said Panchayat convened on 9-3-87 the applicant paid Rs. 5000/- to the father of the non-applicant and promised to pay the remaining amount amounting to Rs. 9009/- by the month of December, 1987. The remaining amount of Rs. 9009/- was not paid till filing of the petition or till the date of the delivery of judgment and passing of the decree by the trial court by the petitioner to the non-applicant. The facts contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this judgment are not in dispute.

4. The contention of the petitioner was that the non-applicant was menially retarded and hard of bearing. She treated him with cruelty in as much as she poured kerosene oil on her person on two occasions and threatened to commit suicide. Though the father of the non-applicant had agreed that the non-applicant would divorce (as per caste custom) the petitioner, yet since the non-applicant did not turn out on 31-12-87, the petitioner did not pay the remaining amount to the father of the non-applicant.

5. The non-applicant denied the said allegations and submitted that in fact the petitioner did not like her looks and hence on the said score wanted to divorce her. He treated the petitioner with cruelty. As a matter of fact (he petitioner wants to marry another lady. The non-applicant wants to reside with the applicant and the agreement entered into by the father of the non-applicant is not acceptable to her. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any decree of divorce against her.

6. After recording evidence in the case the trial court held that it could not be proved that the non-applicant ever poured kerosene oil on her person. It further held that it could not be proved that the non-applicant treated the petitioner with cruelty. On account of inability of the petitioner to establish the said facts, the petition for granting a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner was rejected.

7. It has been argued for the appellant that from the evidence available on record, it is established that at least for once the non-applicant had poured kerosene oil on her person. It was not