1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(1a), 13B, 23 - Petition for divorce - Wife suffering from disease/cancer - Settlement before Supreme Court Meditation Centre - Wife agreeing for divorce on payment of certain amount - Fact that petitioner-wife is ready for the mutual consent divorce after knowing about her medical condition raises a suspicion - Pre-existing duty doctrine applicable - It is a primary duty of the husband only to provide facilities for the treatment of the petitioner - This is a pre-existing duty of the husband - The settlement agreement the respondent-husband is promising to do something which he is already duty bound, is not a valid consideration for the settlement - Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872) S. 16. (S.C.)(183) P.L.R.
  2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(1b) - `Desertion' - It is not a requirement, in case the respondent was abroad, for the appellant before solemnising his marriage to possess a visa so as to go abroad and be with the respondent -  Non possession of visa for going abroad and be with the spouse who is abroad can never be a pre-condition for soleminizing a marriage - When the marriage between the parties was valid, the appellant could ask the respondent to join his company - It is in fact and rather is an obligation on the part of wife to live with her husband - When the appellant could not get a visa to join the respondent in Canada, he phoned her to join him, but she did not respond - In this manner, the respondent has indeed deserted the  appellant. (173) P.L.R.  
  3. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(a) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 23, Rule 1 - Divorce petition is alleged to have been withdrawn by the appellant as per the assurance given by the respondent-wife and her parents but to the utter surprise, nothing finds mention in the above referred order and he withdrew the petition at his own accord - Earlier petition was dismissed in default - No effort was made for restoration rather he opted to file a fresh divorce petition which was subsequently withdrawn by him - There is no serious or specific instance of cruelty after the withdrawal of the earlier divorce petition - Learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the petition for dissolution of marriage is not maintainable and dismissed the divorce petition. (174) P.L.R.  
  4. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(a-i) - Cruelty - A perusal of the pleadings and the evidence reveals that the allegations are devoid of any particulars as to when the appellant refused to cook food - A bald assertion in the petition for divorce supported by the bare deposition of respondent, bereft of any particulars, in our considered opinion, are insufficient to infer cruelty - Respondent has himself averred and deposed that after some time, the appellant improved her conduct and began to behave herself, thereby, condoning the alleged act of failure to cook food etc., if at all such an incident took place - Even otherwise mere failure to cook food in the absence of any other relevant fact, cannot by itself raise an inference of cruelty. (180) P.L.R.  
  5. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(a-i) - Cruelty - Allegation of an extra marital affair could not have been considered for the reason that H.S. was not impleaded as a party, thereby negating the pleadings and the evidence based upon an extra marital affair, with (180) P.L.R.  
  6. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ai) - Cruelty - Allegation that conduct and behaviour of the respondent-wife changed after her joining service as a constable or that she intended to marry with some glorious personality in the Police Department is without any substance - Even the name and parentage of that glorious personality has not been unfolded by the appellant-husband during the course of his evidence - This allegation can be termed to be unfounded, false and baseless - Rather - it amounts to "cruelty". (174) P.L.R.  
  7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ai) - Cruelty - Even from the culture and the society in which we live, it is understandable that the respondent was subjected to cruelty for not bearing a male child - Since the other daughter-in-law of the family had two sons, whereas the elder son of the family had only a female child, it is highly likely that the desire for a male child led the appellant and his family to extend torture to the respondent.     (177) P.L.R.  
  8. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(a-i) - Cruelty - Wife suffering from Hepatitis B - A person suffering from Hepatitis B which could be communicated by sexual access is not a ground which is available under Section 13 - Present petition itself is an example of how cruel a man can be to a woman in a matrimonial relationship - Was the husband cruel to the wife by resorting to divorce in her difficult times of illness or the wife guilty of cruelty in contracting an illness unwittingly? (182) P.L.R.
  9. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ai) - Desertion since the respondent could not conceive for almost eleven years after the birth of her daughter, the relations between the parties worsened from day-to-day and life of the respondent was made a living hell - Ultimately, she was turned out of the matrimonial home - He also referred to the cross-examination of the appellant where he stated that he was not prepared to keep the respondent with him and to rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home at any cost - He also showed ignorance as to whether the respondent was willing to live with him or whether she has ever refused to live with him - The intention of the appellant thus was to get rid of his wife at every cost and he had never intended to bring her back.       (177) P.L.R.  
  10. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(a-i) - Where the husband alleged that the wife murdered her father-in-law which resulted in acquittal - The contextual observations recorded by the Rajasthan High Court while holding that even if the wife is acquitted the husband cannot be expected to co-habit with the wife, proves cruelty, in our considered opinion cannot be read as laying down an absolute rule of law that even if the wife is acquitted, her acquittal would amount to cruelty, on her part - Jabar Mal v. Guddi @ Kamli, 2002(2) All India Hindu Law Reporter 325 (Rajasthan) - Dissented. (180) P.L.R.  
  11. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(a-i), 13-B - Findings that failure to make a statement under Section 13-B of the Act, at the stage of second motion amounts to cruelty must also be reversed - Refusal of the appellant to proceed further with the petition, filed under Section 13-B of the Act, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, cannot be construed as a conduct, sufficient to infer cruelty.  (180) P.L.R.  
  12. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i)(a) - Cruelty - Amendment of petition - Once the divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground of cruelty, subsequent events was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, could always be pleaded by him which shows further extent of cruelty committed by the respondent because as in the present case the respondent has not only made all types of insinuation and aspersions on the character of the petitioner and his sister but also allegedly slapped him in the open Court in the full public view in front of Lawyers, staff member and  etc. - So far as the allegation of the petitioner that he has been slapped by the respondent in the open Court in full public view is concerned, it is also a question of fact and that he is in illicit relation with a lady, cannot be decided until these are taken in the pleadings and are proved by the petitioner by way of  evidence - Amendment sought by the petitioner is of a subsequent event and it would determine the real question in controversy between the parties.  (178) P.L.R.   
  13. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i)(a) - Cruelty - Appellant also admitted that during that trip, he and the respondent had cohabited, "ignoring the past", which would mean that any cruelty prior to that, if at all, had been condoned by the appellant. (180) P.L.R.  
  14. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i)(a) - Cruelty - Complaint made by the respondent to the senior officer of the appellant, though that in itself may be said to be an act of cruelty on the part of the respondent, yet it would be of no consequence to the appellant as it was not put to the respondent in her cross-examination and it was exhibited in the evidence of the appellant. (180) P.L.R.  
  15. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i)(a) - Cruelty - Made no such allegation as would bring out a case of cruelty, making it impossible for him to live with the respondent - Very small incidents were mentioned which show that trigger could be from either side - No serious allegations of "cruelty" as such were levelled.  (180) P.L.R.  
  16. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Allegation of cruelty should not be based on trivial matters, rather such allegations should have the origin in the context of time, place and manner of occurrence - General allegations of cruelty cannot constitute cruelty in the eyes of law so as to part ways in matrimonial house - It be willful and unjustifiably conduct of the spouse of such degree which may endanger the life of other spouse and may cause bodily injury to the spouse and the spouse has a reasonable apprehension of such danger - Mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty - Even filing of criminal cases per se are not to be construed in any strict way, directing cruelty - Use of liquor on some occasion cannot be held to be a continuing misconduct on the part of the husband. (183) P.L.R.
  17. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Conduct of the wife that had been complained of appears to be neither grave nor weighty to constitute cruelty for grant of decree of divorce - Any normal wear and tear of family life, in our considered opinion, can never be the foundation for dissolving marital ties. (180) P.L.R.  
  18. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Condonation of - As the parties resided together till the year 2008 and it was the husband who walked out of the matrimonial home, long cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife for a period of about 12 years since 1996 would suffice to conclude that the appellant-husband  has condoned the alleged acts of cruelty purportedly occurred in the year 1989, 1991, 1993 and 1996. (182) P.L.R.
  19. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Husband convicted in many cases - She admitted that when her husband came on parole, she had met him and had gone with him to Rohtak Courts - Thus, no where she admitted that during that period she stayed with him at his house or lived as husband and wife - Involvement of the respondent/husband in so many criminal cases and then remaining in jail or absconding from the police authorities and further instilling fear in the mind of his wife during his stay with her and putting country made pistol on her temple; giving threat to her life and also giving beatings to her when she was not found awake during late in the night, on his return, are the instances which can be termed that the respondent/husband has caused cruelty to the appellant/wife.  (179) P.L.R.  
  20. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - If the husband refuses to pay the maintenance  pendente lite   ordered by the Appellate Court, such conduct of the husband can be construed as cruelty perpetrated against the wife, inasmuch as the husband is not supposed to leave the wife in the lurch without any means to carry on her life.  (183) P.L.R.
  21. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - It is well settled that mere trivial irritations, quarrels, lack of affection, frequent rudeness of language and petulance of manner do not amount to cruelty and cannot be made basis for dissolution of marriage - Apparently from the evidence available on record, it appears that there were some quarrels between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife coupled with some allegations and counter allegations between themselves which are not more than normal wear and tear of family life and are not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce. (174) P.L.R.  
  22. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Is evident where one spouse treats the other and manifests such feelings towards him or her as to cause reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse - Cruelty may be physical or mental - Whether a spouse is inflicted with physical cruelty or not, it can be judged on the basis of direct evidence whereas mental cruelty is to be inferred on analyzing the factual matrix of each case and drawing conclusion thereon - Has been duly proved that the appellant wife had married the respondent after taking divorce from her first husband - Her attitude towards the respondent and his family members was not cordial from the very beginning. (178) P.L.R.  
  23. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Mere pendency of FIR and proceedings under Domestic and Violence Act cannot be taken to mean that the respondent-wife has acted with cruel attitude - Filing of such proceedings is the legal domain of the respondent-wife and mere filing of such cases cannot constitute cruelty unless and until the case is found to be false.  (183) P.L.R.
  24. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Non-payment of maintenance, in our view, also amounts to cruelty, more so, when the hapless lady is possessed of no means of subsistence and has to support her two grown up children besides herself. (173) P.L.R.  3
  25. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Nothing was mentioned in the petition as to what kind of influence, the mother of the respondent had put on her and what was the action of the respondent pursuant thereto so as to constitute a cruelty, making it impossible for the appellant to live with his wife - In the given facts and circumstances, since the appellant failed to show that the mother of the respondent had any influence on her to instigate her against the appellant and his family, it is not understandable as to why the wife could not meet her mother everyday - Why it should be expected that the wife should not meet her family on the parental side without permission of her husband and/or his family is something beyond comprehension - Merely alleging that the respondent used to meet her mother everyday while returning home from work would certainly not be cruelty of any kind whatsoever.  (180) P.L.R.  
  26. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Respondent who has married the appellant is bound to maintain her - Leaving the wife in penury by the husband without offering anything to sustain her life despite the orders passed by the competent Court directing him to make payment of maintenance, certainly amounts to cruelty.  (183) P.L.R.
  27. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Relationship between the parties had deteriorated on account of arrogant attitude, indifferent behaviour and aggressive approach of the wife - It was impossible for the respondent-husband to live together with the appellant having mental agony, torture and distress - Further, she had shown her unwillingness to disclose her age and that is why she had not produced any matriculation certificate or any other record of the School - Had left the respondent and had withdrawn herself from the society of the respondent after electing as member of the Panchayat Samiti - Had contested the election without the consent of the respondent-husband - Ground of cruelty - Upheld.   (177) P.L.R.  
  28. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was pending at the time of filing the present petition - The appellant did not contest those proceedings and opted to abstain therefrom though he claimed to be well aware about the same -  Meaning thereby, he did not contest or dispute the contentions of the respondent raised in the petition for maintenance - The only inference that could be drawn by the Court is that the appellant had been cruel and non-caring towards the respondent. (178) P.L.R.  
  29. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - She even gave beating to him and his mother with danda - She left the matrimonial home without the knowledge of the appellant and lived with some other unknown persons for two/three days - She left the matrimonial home at several times and on the efforts made by the appellant and his family members, she used to come back - She finally left the matrimonial home in 1990 and had deserted the husband - Where the wife cause mental cruelty and the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce - Husband granted decree of divorce. (178) P.L.R.  
  30. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - The appellant-wife had refused to consummate the marriage with the respondent - This would also result in mental cruelty to the respondent-husband as the marital obligation was not being performed by the appellant-wife - She also abandoned the marital relationship without any reason which amounted to desertion - The trial court had, thus, rightly granted a decree of divorce. (178) P.L.R.  
  31. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Though for seeing cruelty, the social and economic status of the parties and also their educational and family background are relevant, yet for showing cruelty, the spouse seeking divorce must prove that the conduct of the other party was and remained such that it became impossible for the party seeking divorce, to live with his/her spouse - General allegations that the wife did not cook food or did not behave as expected in presence of relatives and friends, went out on her own or did not listen to everything the husband said, would not constitute cruelty. (180) P.L.R.  
  32. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - The appellant condoned the cruelty if any, till the time the petition under Section 9 of the Act was pending or at least till the time he made the statement regarding withdrawal - Just two days after that, he filed the divorce petition, meaning thereby that there could be no fresh instance of cruelty towards him - He did not think of withdrawing the petition under Section 9 of the Act and filing one under Section 13 of the Act after he was allegedly assaulted.  (180) P.L.R.  
  33. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Though for seeing cruelty, the social and economic status of the parties and also their educational and family background are relevant, yet for showing cruelty, the spouse seeking divorce must prove that the conduct of the other party was and remained such that it became impossible for the party seeking divorce, to live with his/her spouse - General allegations that the wife did not cook food or did not behave as expected in presence of relatives and friends, went out on her own or did not listen to everything the husband said, would not constitute cruelty.  (180) P.L.R.  
  34. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Varies from individual to individual, depending upon social and economic status of the spouses - It is not necessary that the cruelty is committed physically, rather mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty to a spouse in a given scenario.  (183) P.L.R.
  35. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Word `cruelty' has not been defined in the HMA - Cruelty, no doubt, can be mental or physical or both - Cruelty is the cumulative effect of the conduct of a person which adversely affect the other. (180) P.L.R.  
  36. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Whether dismissal of the criminal complaint and the leveling of allegation of sodomy etc. perpetuate a degree of cruelty sufficient to dissolve the marriage - A false allegation, cannot by itself, raise an inference of cruelty but allegations that assassinate the character and conduct of a spouse, as are sufficient to traumatise a spouse, must necessarily raise an inference of cruelty - Admittedly the appellant-wife could not prove both these allegations as they were found to be false and in our considered opinion, prove the allegation of cruelty. (182) P.L.R.
  37. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty has not been defined anywhere - The allegation of cruelty could not be based on trivial issues, rather it should have the origin with reference to time, place and manner in which the occurrence took place - Bald statements and allegations of cruelty cannot constitute cruelty in the eyes of law - Mere irritation or annoyance does not constitute cruelty, rather it is spontaneous change of human behaviour based on problems of human being - The cruelty should be of such nature in which it is not reasonably expected to live together. (183) P.L.R.
  38. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Dowry - Alleged demand made prior to marriage, even, if taken to be an instance, would have given the wife and her family a chance to cancel the marriage - Even otherwise, asking for honouring with small gifts cannot be taken to be such an incident which would create mental agony in the mind of the appellant after the marriage. (183) P.L.R.
  39. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - Every matrimonial conduct which may cause annoyance to the other party may not amount to cruelty - Occasional quarrels cannot be termed as cause of cruelty to the husband as it is the ordinary wear and tear of the life - Trivial irritation quarrels between spouses, which happen in day to day married life, cannot be termed as cruelty in this case - Initiation of legal proceedings for redressal of one's legal rights or to punish wrong doers cannot be said to be an act of  cruelty - Symptoms of aggressive behaviour and sadness of mood, does not mean that she is suffering from any disease but the same is the result of family atmosphere at matrimonial home.  (180) P.L.R.  
  40. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia) - If a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce - Criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband's divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court - In any event, both the parties were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband - Complaint filed against the husband as well as seven members of her family for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34, 148-A, 384, 324 of the IPC and Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961) - Family members were arrested which resulted in acquittal.   (S.C.)(179) P.L.R.  
  41. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - On a petition  preferred either by the husband or the wife, the marriage could be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the either party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty - "Cruelty" is not defined in the Act - The instances of cruelty depend upon case to case and no straight jacket formula can be laid. (174) P.L.R.  
  42. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a) - Would show that the appellant condoned the cruelty if any, till the time the petition under Section 9 of the Act was pending or at least till the time he made the statement regarding withdrawal - Just two days after that, he filed the divorce petition, meaning thereby that there could be no fresh instance of cruelty towards him - He did not think of withdrawing the petition under Section 9 of the Act and filing one under Section 13 of the Act after he was allegedly assaulted. (180) P.L.R.  
  43. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ia)- Cruelty - An allegation of cruelty must be supported by cogent pleadings, disclosing the date, month and where the cruelty is physical, the nature of the assault and the injuries - Deposition by the appellant's witnesses, who are her father and uncle, are derived from information furnished by the appellant and, even otherwise, do not contain any particulars of the physical abuse whether soon after the marriage or at any time thereafter - Deposition by her father and uncle are no better and even otherwise, as they draw knowledge from the appellant, cannot be made basis for accepting the allegations of physical cruelty. (182) P.L.R.
  44. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-a)- Mental disorder - Minor son aged more than six years is living with the respondent-wife, who is taking care of the minor from the time of separation from the husband - If the respondent was suffering from mental disorder it was not reasonably expected from her to bring up the child for so long - Rather the husband would not have allowed the wife with such disability to take care of his minor child - The silence of the husband on this aspect speaks volumes about his mindset.  (183) P.L.R.
  45. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(ib) - Desertion - Implies not only the factum of separation but also the intention to separate permanently and put an end to the matrimonial relationship and cohabitation - Appellant/husband was required to prove not only the fact that the respondent was living separate from him for the last more than two years preceding the presentation of the petition, but also that she had no sufficient reason to live away from him and by living separately she intended to end the matrimonial relationship - Reasons for marital discord between the parties was an extra marital relationship of the appellant with some other lady - The respondent neither intended to live separate from the appellant permanently nor had put an end to her marital bond with him - It was under compelled circumstances created by the appellant that she was living away from the matrimonial home - Application for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce - Was dismissed -  Order upheld. (178) P.L.R.  
  46. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) S. 13(1)(i-b) - Desertion - Howsoever long, may be the separation but unless intention to bring cohabitation to an end permanently, is proved, the ground of desertion is not available to the spouse setting up the same - In this case, the respondent/husband is in jail on account of his conviction in criminal case - As such, it cannot be said that the respondent/husband has in any way, intended to bring cohabitation permanently to an end or that he wanted to bring to an end permanently his relationship as husband and wife with the appellant/wife.  (179) P.L.R.