The court held that the husband's allegations of cruelty were vague, non-specific, and unsubstantiated. The court also held that the husband's conduct in contracting a second marriage during the statutory waiting period did not stand in the way of a consideration of the appeal on the merits.

K. K. Denesan, J.

1. This is the wife's appeal under S.19(1)(i) of the Family Court's Act, 1984 challenging the order dt. 24/11/2001 in OP No. 363/1999 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said OP was filed by the respondent / husband under S.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and S.13 (1) (ib) on the ground of desertion.

2. THE HUSBAND'S PLEADINGS

The case of the respondent / husband in the petition for divorce is as follows: The petitioner (Anil Krishnan) and the respondent (Suchitra) are Hindus belonging to the Nair community. Their marriage was solemnized according to the customary rites at Sree Rama Mandir in Alappuzha on 08/06/1991. On the same day the petitioner and the respondent came to the petitioner's house at Ernakulam and thereafter they were living together at Ernakulam. Right from the beginning of their stay in the petitioner's family house, the petitioner found the respondent behaving very strangely towards him and his parents. She exhibited anger and annoyance towards the petitioner and his parents. At first the petitioner thought that the respondent's behaviour was due to her initial inability to adjust to the life of a newly married wife. He tolerated her behaviour and lived as a loving husband. The respondent continued exhibiting cold behaviour and informed the petitioner that she had dislike for him and his parents and wanted to leave the matrimonial home. On 24/07/1991 the respondent went to her parental house at Alappuzha. Thereafter on 26/07/1991 the parents of the respondent informed the petitioner that the respondent was pregnant. The petitioner and his parents immediately went to the respondent's house at Alappuzha to take her back to the matrimonial home. Initially the respondent refused to go with them. She did not offer any explanation for her dislike to return to the matrimonial home. The respondent, however, came back to the matrimonial home on 04/08/1991 after much persuasion from the petitioner and also from the parents of both the petitioner and the respondent. After returning to the matrimonial home, the respondent continued to be indifferent towards the petitioner and insisted that she be taken to her parental house. She had to be taken to Alappuzha on 30/08/1991. She was brought back on 20/09/1991, but on 02/10/1991 on her insistence the respondent was taken again to Alappuzha. Her parents brought her back on 03/10/1991. On 05/11/1991 she again went to her parental home at Alappuzha. The parents of the petitioner went to Alappuzha on the request of the petitioner to persuade the respondent to come and stay in the matrimonial home with the petitioner. As there was no justifiable cause for the respondent's failure to go and stay with the petitioner in the matrimonial home, her father brought her back to Ernakulam on 24/11/1991. On 12/12/1991 the parents of the respondent formally came to the petitioner's family house at Ernakulam to take her to Alappuzha for delivery. The abnormal and unreasonable attitude of the respondent had upset the petitioner very much. He had made many attempts to set right her attitude. The parents of the respondent informed the petitioner and his parents that the respondent's pregnancy had adversely affected her. The respondent once informed the petitioner that she disliked him talking to his parents, relatives and close friends and that, that was the reason for her anger and annoyance towards him. The petitioner tried to convince her that he was the only son of his parents, that he had duties towards his parents and that both the petitioner and the respondent should together socialise with close relatives and friends. The respondent, however, appeared to be unwilling to change her attitude and to communicate and mingle with everyone including the petitioner. During the period of pregnancy while the respondent was in Alappuzha, the petitioner and his parents had bestowed much care and attention on her by visiting her o