JUDGMENT V. D. Mishra, C. J.—This is an appeal by the wife against the order of Senior Sub-Judge, Simla granting divorce to the husband. 2. The wife belongs to Solan whereas the husband is resident of Simla. They were married on 29th May, 1970 at Solan. Soon after the marriage disputes broke out between the parties. The husband is the only son of his parents but he decided, at the insistence of his wife, to hire a separate house. The parties thereafter shifted to a house in Chakkar and then to a house in Chhota Simla. The bickerings continued. According to the husband the wife would abuse him and kick him with shoes. The husband goes on to allege that the wife asked him to resign his job in Simla and go to Solan to live with her. The husband having refused to accede to such a request was threatened with dire consequences. He was invited to Solan to attend the marriage of the wifes sister which took place on the night intervening 10th and 11th July, 1973. It is alleged that early morning on 11th July, 1973 he was given a beating by his father-in-law and three brothers-in-law at the instigation of the wife. Thereafter the parties never resided together. The husband filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty in February, 1974. During the pendency of the proceedings Hindu Marriage Act was amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. The petition, therefore, was converted into one of divorce. 3. The wife denies the allegations. She says that her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. They used to taunt her, call her names and abuse her parents. She used to hear all the humiliation silently. In order to compensate for the dowry she was compelled to seek a job. The husband was responsible for getting her a job in the Municipal Corporation Simla. She alleges that in the month of March, 1971, when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, she was given a beating and forced to leave for her parents house at Solan. It was there that she delivered a male child. Since she was absent from her office, her services were terminated. She alleges that in the month of March, 1971, when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, she was given a beating and forced to leave for her parents house at Solan. It was there that she delivered a male child. Since she was absent from her office, her services were terminated. It was in the month of October, 1971 that some relations intervened and the husband agreed to treat her well. She, therefore, returned to the matrimonial home and started living with her husband. She noticed that the attitude of the family members of the husband did not materially change. The husband got her employed afresh in Taxation Department of Municipal Corporation Simla. He also arranged a separate accommodation first at Chakkar, and thereafter at Victoria Cottage, Chhota Simla. For sometime they lived in peace but later on the attitude of the husband changed. He started maltreating her. In the month of March, 1973 he walked out of the house threatening not to return, and went to live with his parents. He wrote a letter to the landlord that he will be vacating the premises on 8th April, 1973 and so the latter should take possession of the house. The wife paid the rent for one month to avoid vacating the premises. The wife had to invite her brothers wife for her company after the petitioner left the house. However, she left this house and went back to Solan to live with her parents in April, 1973. At the intervention of relations she came back to live in the matrimonial home at Chhota Simla after sometime. 4. The wife denies that any beating at any stage was given to the husband by her father or brothers at her instigation. She, however, says that at Solan the husband told her relations that he was going to remarry and get rid of her. The parents had to tolerate all the accusation of the husband because of the impending marriage of her sister. She, however, says that at Solan the husband told her relations that he was going to remarry and get rid of her. The parents had to tolerate all the accusation of the husband because of the impending marriage of her sister. She also states that "in view of the conduct, maltreatment and cruelty, mental and physical, (she) has every reason to apprehend and believe that it will be highly unsafe for her health and life to live with the petitioner and for the said reason, it is she who is legally entitled to get a decree for judicial separation against the petitioner and as such being not in a position to live at Simla." 5. The trial court came to the conclusion that dowry was the cause of disputes. This is evident from letter R-1 which was written by the father of the husband and was addressed to the husband and wife. The trial Judge also came to the conclusion that the separate residence, first at Chakkar and later on at Chhota Simla, were taken by the husband at the insistence of the wife. He also believed that there were continuous bickerings. But he concluded. "However, till the parties resided together at Chhota Simla, the acts of cruelty and counter cruelty till the date of marriage of the sister of respondent at Solan seems to have been condoned and cannot be good ground for the grant of a decree of divorce." The trial court believed the incident of 11th July, 1973 in which the husband was given a beating by the father and brothers of the wife. This was held as a cruelty and the husband was granted a decree of divorce. 6. I have been taken through the evidence of the relevant witnesses. I have no doubt that the husband had been given a beating at Solan as alleged by him. This is evident from the fact that the very next day the father of the respondent went to Solan to make a grievance of this incident. The wife admits that the husbands father did come to Solan to make a grievance of his son having been beaten. But then neither the wife nor her brother, who admit the husbands father making a grievance at Solan, give the version of what transpired between them and husbands father at that time. The wife admits that the husbands father did come to Solan to make a grievance of his son having been beaten. But then neither the wife nor her brother, who admit the husbands father making a grievance at Solan, give the version of what transpired between them and husbands father at that time. If the husband had not been given a beating, there was no reason for his father to go all the way to Solan to remonstrate about it. 7. Of cource, there is nothing on record to show that the wife was present at the time when the husband was given a beating. Nor is there anything to show that she tried to save the husband from the beating given to him. I am therefore, not ready to believe that the husband had been lured to Solan for the purpose of giving a beating as alleged by the husband. But the conduct of the wife shows that she was least bothered about her husband being beaten by her father and brothers. After the incident she never came back to her matrimonial home. There is nothing on the record to show that any attempt was made by her for reconciliation. Indeed she is not willing to come to Simla and live with her husband as is evident from her reply to the petition which I have already extracted. She feels unsafe to live with the husband. 8. During the course of proceedings I tried to bring about reconciliation between the parties but I failed. However, I noticed that twice she came to the Court and each time she was accompanied by her two brothers. 1 had even questioned why she must come to Simla under the guard of her two brothers. I was told that she was afraid that the husband might beat her. Indeed such an incident is alleged to have taken place during the course of trial about which she had lodged a report with the police. The only reason to refer to the above is that the attitude of the wife has not been of one who wanted to live with the husband who had gone to the extent of setting up a matrimonial home away from the house of his father. The only reason to refer to the above is that the attitude of the wife has not been of one who wanted to live with the husband who had gone to the extent of setting up a matrimonial home away from the house of his father. During the course of arguments I was informed that the husbands fathers house, which is situated above his shop in Lower Bazar Simla, consists hardly of two rooms. In that place live the parents of the husband as well as his maternal grand mother. Sometimes the sisters of the husband would also come to live there. In these circumstances I can appreciate that a young newly married wife would continuously feel ill at ease. This would necessitate setting up a separate home if it was possible. It was unfortunate indeed that the bickerings continued. It is on record that many a time the husband would not eat at the house. The husband would have us believe that the wife would not cook for him and would taunt him to engage a cook or go and eat out. The wife explains that the husband would go and eat with his mother refusing to eat what she cooked for him. Be that as it may, the gulf widened so much that each one stopped caring for the other. The husband went to the extent of ensuring that the wife was thrown out of Victoria Cottage, Chhota Simla by calling upon the landlord to take possession of the house. 9. I agree with the trial court that so long as they lived together under the same roof they accept the quarrells, bickerings and walk outs as a normal wear and tear of the married life. However, since these kept on escalating a stage reached when they parted company. 10. That the wife did complain to her father and brothers against the husband, is not denied by the wife. But she alleges that it was the husband who threatened her parents and brothers to leave her and get remarried. It is difficult to believe that the husband gave this threat while the marriage of the wifes sister was taking place. On the other hand, it can be safely presumed that she complained so bitterly that it resulted in the husbands receiving the beating at the hands of her brothers and father. 11. What is cruelty? It is difficult to believe that the husband gave this threat while the marriage of the wifes sister was taking place. On the other hand, it can be safely presumed that she complained so bitterly that it resulted in the husbands receiving the beating at the hands of her brothers and father. 11. What is cruelty? It has not been defined. It cannot be defined. Subtle indeed are the ways of human conduct. Seemingly innocent acts may be the worst cruelty. For example, while living under the same roof one of the spouses may completely neglect the other and may not be on talking terms even. It is, therefore, neither possible nor desirable to lay down the acts which may amount to cruelty. It must, of course, be remembered that an actual or presumed intention to injure is not an essential element in cruelty. The question in cruelty case is whether the conduct by this man to this woman, or vice versa, is cruelty : Gollins v. Gollins [(1963) 2 All E.R. 966]. 12. Whereas under section 10 of the unamended Hindu Marriage Act cruelty must be such as to cause injury in the body and mind of the other spouse, this limitation has been removed by the amendment. The present clause reads thus: "that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty". Of course each and every fancy of a very sensitive person cannot also be treated as cruelty. But any conduct by which a reasonable person may be physically or mentally tormented must amount to cruelty. The conduct of the wife immediately before and after the petitioner got a beating at Solan does amount to cruelty in the circumstances of this case. 13. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal and leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.