Ji'w3f'%. / ,iT'v!tf%, ^i '% ' '^£;?<;'', ^ ';, i "i:8 1 '%sa!^ei' Jlf M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUS ^ DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI Bt HON'BfcB N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ P.A.tMt.No. 86 OF 2608 Vs. APPBARAMCB; Mr. Arjun Yadav, counsel for the AppeUanfc Mr. Janakram Verma, counsel for the Respondent. JUDGMBHT (ORAL1 (26.08.2010) Per I.M. QUDDUSI 1. This appeal has been filed ^auist thc judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg dismissing ffae suit filed by fhe app&Uant for decree ofdivorce u/s 13(l)(a)(b) ofHiadu Marriage Act 2. It is not dteputed fhat the raarriage betweea the appellaat and respondent was solenuuzed on 20t:b of May 2005 . according to the Hiodu custonis. The groiind taken in the petition for divorce was fhat the respondent wife was sufiFering fi-oia aaental disorder, therefore, her conduct coniplained of amottnts to cruelly. Leamed Addl. Principal Judge, Fauuty Court disiaisscd the siiit and fixed Rs.2000/- d ••^K'^ITS: \ APPBLLAMT Khumesh Deshmukh, s/o Moolchand Deshjnukh, aged 31 years, R/o %A, Street No.8, Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & District (C.G). RBSPOBDEnT Smt. Padmini Desmukh, D/o Nemicliand DeshinuKh, ayd about 25 years, R/o A-37, Ainbuja Khan Colony, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G). •':'•-. ; '?o per month as ntaiatenance for life tuue and Rs.4000/- as expenses. t 3. No cross examination to this appeal has bcen filed on behalf ofthe respondent. 4. The nieaaiag of expression ''mental disordei^ has bcen used in Explanation (^ to Clause (ii^ of Sub-section (1) ofSection 13 offhc Hiadu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads as luider: "(a) fhe expression ''inentel disordei^ incans mental iUness, arrested or in(>omplete developiaent of inind, psychopanfhic disorder or auy other disorder or disabiUty ofmind and iacludes schizophrenia." 5. The appeUaat tried to produce the evidence of the Medical Of&cer who onty brought fhe Register and said ffaat her iiame was entered only once in fhe register. It appears that ifit is taken as true, mentioning fhe naiae ofrespondent ia the register for one tiiae in the whole 24 years of her age, would not be sufffcient to hold that she was suffering foia ''inental duorder" withia the ineaniag of Expression (^ of clause (ii^ of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, 1955 aud the allegation ofcruclly and misbehaviour on fhe part of respondent wife would not arise. Learaed counsel for the apt>ellant has also lurged fhat fhe evidence of the parents of fhe appeUant shows that by virtue of her behaviour she was not upto the mark. Even if it is taken to be true for fhe sake of ai^ument, it canuot be said ^\ that because of the behaviour, respondent was a laentatfy disoidered person. In case of Smfc Jltcgc«d«?»iV. Ja^Osh Preisctd, ASt 2007 S.C. 1426 it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court tfaat the concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to cnminal trials and not to civil inatters and certainly not to matters of such deHcate persoiial relationship as those of husband aiid wife. Therefore, one has to see that what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty Uas to be fouad out, not inerely aa a matter of fact but as the efiFect on the inind of the coinplaiuaut spouse because of the acts or oinissions of fhe other. Cruelly niay be physical or naay be inental. In physical cruelty, fhere can bc taagible and direct evidence, but ia the case of raental cruelly there inay not at the same tune be direct evadence. Courts are required to probe into fhe inental process aad inental efiFect of incidents fhat are brought out in evideuce. It is in this vicw fhat one Iias to consider the evidenee in matrixaoiual inatters. It Iias also been held that in the niattcr of divorce, the aUeged cruelly or conduct inust be grave aud weighly and niust lead to couclusion that petitioning spouse caiuiot be expected to livg with ofher. Therefore, in such cases, fhe Coiut's approach wtule assessiug gravity of conduct should not be too hyper- sensitive. It has been furfher held fhat to constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be ''grave and •weigb.ty" so as to coiae to the conclusion fhat the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. ^ fi^ It luust be somethiag inore serious fhaa ''ordinaiy wear and tear of inarried life". The conduct. taking into consideration the circumstances and the back ground has to be examiaed to reach the conclusion whether the conduct coinplaiaed of amounts to cnielty in the luatrunoiual law. Conduct has to be considered iu the back groitnd of scveral &.ctors as social status <of parties, their education, physical and niental conditions, custonis and traditions. It is difficiilt to lay down a precise defiiudon or to give exhaustive description of fhe circumstaaces, which would constitute cruelty. It inust be of fhe type as to satisfy the conseience of the Court that fhe re]ationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to fhe conduct of the other spouse fhat it would be impossible for theiu to live together wifhout inental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaiaing spouse to secure divorce. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certaia bearable extent has to be iaherent ia every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling diEFerences should not be exaggerated and inagnufied to destroy what is said to have been inade in heaven. AU quarrels inust be weighed .Eroin that poiat of •view. A too tecluucal hyper-sensitive approach would be coitater-productive to fhe iastitution ofuiarriage. 8. In view of the above, fhis appeal has no force and is liable to be disinissed and fhe sanie is dteiaissed accordiagfy. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted fhat this court may enhaace the amount of monthly manitenance. In fhe absencc of cross objection to appeal, we are not inclined to pass any order iu this regard. \ ""•, • '"^. 10. Accordingly, this appeal stands fiiially disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Rao Bs \. PTT 4X