The judgment establishes the interpretation and application of the concept of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, emphasizing mental cruelty and its impact on the matrimonial relationship.

D.K. PALIWAL, J.

Appellant-wife has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.266-A/2009 H.M.A. on 6.1.2011, whereby decree of divorce has been granted in favour of respondent/husband.

2. The respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pleading that his marriage with the appellant-wife was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites on 18.5.1995. After marriage on the very first night, appellant told the respondent that she was not ready to marry with him because she in love of one Pinki Gurjar and wanted to marry with him. Despite insistence by the respondent, appellant did not allow him to have sexual intercourse. It is further pleaded that after 8 months of marriage on 18th January, 1996 the appellant gave birth to a male child. When the respondent asked, appellant replied that child is of Pinki Gurjar. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent is a bank officer and have a reputation in the society, therefore, the respondent, did not disclose the above fact to anybody. It is further pleaded that appellant used to leave her matrimonial home without seeking any permission and used to return after 6-6 hours. On being asked, the appellant used to say that she is a modern girl and if any interference is made, she will lodge a report. The appellant used to talk to some unknown boys for hours on mobile phone. When objected, she used to quarrel with the respondent. It is further stated that once appellant threw hot tea on the face of the respondent and used to give threat of throwing acid on respondent. On 24.11.2008 father of the appellant and appellant gave threatening that appellant is not willing to live with the respondent and asked 2/3rd of his salary and two rooms along with latrine, bathroom and kitchen in the house. Appellant is not discharging her matrimonial obligations for the last 12 years and behaving with cruelty with the respondent. By amendment it has been pleaded that wife has made false allegations against father and mother of the respondent that father-in-law used to say her mother-in-law that respondent is not his son and also that mother-in- law remained out of home for hours at late night with some persons. Due to the conduct of mother-in-law, the reputation of appellant has been tarnished in the society. It is pleaded that due to these unfounded and wild allegations against the character of his mother, respondent feels humiliated and in such circumstances it is not possible for the respondent to live with the appellant. It is prayed that their marriage be dissolved.

3. Appellant/wife denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that she does not know Pinki Gurjar. She belongs to a reputed family. She never told that she loves Pinki Gurjar and child is born to her from Pinki Gurjar. It is pleaded that respondent and his father are habitual drinker. Whenever quarrel took place between the father and mother of the respondent, father of the respondent used to say that respondent-Manoj is not his son. It is further stated that appellant never left the matrimonial home, but mother of the respondent had left the house and did not return up to late night. The respondent and his father threatened the appellant that if mother of the respondent did not return, she would be killed. It is further stated that at about 11.00 p.m. two persons came on motorcycle and left the mother of the respondent. When the appellant objected the conduct of mother-in-law to the respondent, then she was beaten. On 8.11.2008 mother of the respondent left the house with two unknown persons and came back after two hours. It is further pleaded that father of the respondent was having evil eye on her and also used to bring women in her matrimonial home for satisfying his lust. When appellant objected, then he replied that