FAO No. 4437of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4437 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.07.2010 Dalbir Singh son of Churia Ram ….. APPELLANT VERSUS Rajbala wife of Dalbir Singh ….. RESPONDENT CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate, for the appellant. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Family Court at Hisar on 14.01.2010 dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent by way of granting them divorce under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Records reveal that the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Act claiming decree of divorce on the ground of FAO No. 4437of 2010 (O&M) 2 cruelty meted out to her by the appellant. It was her case that the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage on 18.03.2004. The appellant and his family members started harassing the respondent. At their asking, father of the respondent paid Rs. 2,100/- and also gave a buffalo to the appellant on 25.03.2004. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was also paid to the appellant. Even then the appellant was not satisfied. He, under the influence of liquor, used to beat the respondent. The matter even went to the police authorities and an FIR was recorded against the appellant under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC. Notice of the application was sent to the appellant. He filed reply controverting all the allegations made by the respondent. The trial Court framed the issues on 26.03.2009. Records reveal that in the meantime, by passing an interim order on 26.03.2009, the appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance and litigation charges to the respondent. However, the appellant failed to do so despite opportunities given to him. When nothing was done, his defence was struck off on 28.07.2009. Admittedly, the above-said order has become final. Thereafter, the respondent-wife produced evidence to support her case. The trial Court, on conclusion of evidence, gave a finding that the factum of cruelty, at the hands of the appellant, is proved on record. There was no rebuttal to the evidence led by the respondent. The trial Court has observed as under:- “15. The entire evidence of petitioner remained unrebutted and unchallenged. She was mal-treated and harassed by respondent. The panchayat was also convened to settle the matter but the respondent was not willing to keep her in FAO No. 4437of 2010 (O&M) 3 matrimonial home. She is residing separately since October, 2005. The cruelty can be further inferred that he even has not paid a single penny as interim maintenance. Mental cruelty is not defined in HM Act. Mental cruelty in Section 13 (1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts. The assessment of cruelty has to be assessed by the acts committed by the parties having regard to the status of the parties in the social life, their custom tradition and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the parties spouse is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible and that only the court can find that there is cruelty on the part of spouse. It has to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall FAO No. 4437of 2010 (O&M) 4 consideration of all relevant circumstances. Under the statutory provision cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act, probably, the Legislature has advisedly refrained from making any attempt at giving a comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover all cases, realizing the danger in making such attempt.” We feel that the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified. At the time of hearing of this appeal, counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial Court, on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court. The appeal has also been filed 150 days beyond the period of limitation, for which the explanation given is not satisfactory. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE July 30, 2010 pj