Cruelty, both physical and mental, constitutes valid grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, assessed on the severity of the impact on the victim spouse.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J This appeal has been filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree in O.P.No.470/2016 of Family Court, Ottapalam by which it declined the relief of divorce sought by her.

2. 1^st respondent married the appellant on 25.10.2001 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. In the said wedlock two children were born to them. At the time of marriage, appellant was given 21½ sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. While residing in the matrimonial home, 1^st respondent subjected the appellant to mental and physical cruelty. He used to manhandle the appellant after consuming alcohol. He also prevented the appellant from talking and mingling with the neighbours. On one occasion when the mother of the appellant advised the 1^st respondent, he attempted to assault her. 1^st respondent developed an extramarital affair with the 2^nd respondent who was a tenant in the building owned by him and when the petitioner questioned the said relationship, R1 mentally and physically harassed the appellant. He misappropriated 18½ sovereigns of the appellant. He failed to provide money to the appellant even for her necessities and whenever she demanded money to meet her necessities 1^st respondent used to abuse her and harassed her mentally. Hence, the appellant sought divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. 1^st respondent/ husband filed counter admitting the marriage and the birth of two children in the wedlock. But he denied the allegations of cruelty levelled against him. He also denied the allegations of extramarital affair with R2. It was contended by him that appellant who obtained a job in an automobile company deserted him and avoided him.

4. Second respondent filed counter denying the allegations levelled against her.

5. Evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1(a) to A4.

6. After trial, the Family Court declined the relief of divorce sought by the wife.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the testimony of the appellant, who was examined as PW1 is enough to prove the mental and physical cruelty suffered by her at the hands of the 1^st respondent. It was further contended that Ext.A1 series telephone and call details would reveal that the 1^st respondent had illicit relationship with R2. Moreover Ext.A3 advertisement effected by the 1^st respondent would show that he is not all interested in continuing the marital relationship with the appellant.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent contended that there is no evidence to show that the 1^st respondent subjected the appellant to cruelty; that there is no evidence to show that he had extramarital affair with R2 as alleged by the appellant and therefore, there are no reasons at all to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.

9. Now let us see whether the impugned judgment and decree need any interference by this Court.

10. Admittedly, parties are Hindus and their marriage was solemnised on 25.10.2001 and two children were born in the said wedlock. The specific version of the appellant, who was examined as PW1 is that the 1^st respondent subjected her to mental and physical harassment. According to her, 1^st respondent is an alcoholic and he used to manhandle her after consuming alcohol. She has further testified that 1^st respondent misappropriated her gold ornaments weighing 18 sovereigns and also 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments of their children. Another act of cruelty which the appellant alleges against the 1^st respondent is that he destroyed her books and study materials and also threw away her mobile phone. PW1 has also testified that whenever she demanded money from the 1^st respondent to m