JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal at the instance of the husband arises out of a Matrimonial suit filed by the husband for judicial separation under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was amended praying for divorce after the amendment of the marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977. In the petition filed the only ground alleged by the petitioner/husband as against the wife is cruelty. 2. THE broad fact leading to the unfortunate suit is that the parties were married according to Hindu rites on the 11th May, 1967. On 10th of November, 1967, the wife allegedly left the matrimonial home with her parents. A daughter was born to her on 30th June, 1968. On 9th July, 1973, the present suit was filed after withdrawing the earlier suit being Suit No. 16 of 1973, filed by the husband as against the wife in the same court with the leave to file a fresh suit. After a protracted hearing of the matter ultimately by a judgment dated 16th April, 1979, the husband's petition for divorce was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the husband presented the present appeal on 15th of June, 1979. Before we deal with the case in hand, at the outset when the parties were present in court we asked both the parties whether there is any chance for reconciliation even at this stage. While the wife agreed to go back to the husband, the husband definitely through his Advocate stated he is not willing to take back his wife In the longish petition for divorce it was stated marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent wife was a negotiated one. Then after two months after the marriage the petitioner/ husband who is a member of a joint family comprising of his old father, elder brother uncle, aunt and their children was living at premises No. 8, Sashi Bhusan Neogi Garden lane and also in the adjoining house. But the respondent/wife after about two months of the marriage was pestering the husband for living apart from the joint family. The petitioner/husband alleged that the wife was always suspicious of the husband and it was stated in that petition that it was alleged by the wife that the petitioner/husband had association with opposite sex. She was also pestering the petitioner/husband persistently as the petitioner, it is alleged, used to come back home after his work at late hours. The petitioner/husband alleged that the wife was always suspicious of the husband and it was stated in that petition that it was alleged by the wife that the petitioner/husband had association with opposite sex. She was also pestering the petitioner/husband persistently as the petitioner, it is alleged, used to come back home after his work at late hours. It is alleged further that this nagging character of the respondent/wife reached such a pass that even when the petitioner/husband retired to bed-room the respondent Wife would quarrel with the petitioner/husband with violent outburst of temper. This was, it: is alleged, uncalled for and unreasonable conduct and behaviour of the respondent/ wife so soon after his marriage not only embarrassed the petitioner/husband with the other members of the family but started to affects the peace of mind, work in office and the state of his health due to lack of sleep at night. It is further alleged that the respondent/wife went to the police and made a diary against the petitioner/ husband, went to the office of the husband and raised hue and cry in the office and also went to the Superintendent of Police and complained against the petitioner/husband. it is alleged further that she went to the office of the petitioner/husband and complained to the higher authorities for redress of the alleged grievance of the petitioner's wife. It is further alleged that the respondent/wife displayed complete lack of under standing of the position of the petitioner demanding to stay alone outside the joint family. It is stated further that the petitioners wife was taken to the petitioner's father-in-law's place by her father at the instance of the relations of the petitioner and she along with her father left the premises in the month of October, 1967. Thereafter all on a sudden on 6th November, 1967, when the petitioner/husband was not at home, the respondent turned up at the matrimonial home at Baranagar escorted by her elder brother. When asked by the petitioner's elder brother for her sudden return so late at night it is alleged, the respondent/wife lost her temper without any provocation and started quarrelling bitterly to the embarrassment of all including the petitioner's elder brother who being unable to control her left. When asked by the petitioner's elder brother for her sudden return so late at night it is alleged, the respondent/wife lost her temper without any provocation and started quarrelling bitterly to the embarrassment of all including the petitioner's elder brother who being unable to control her left. Be that as it may thereafter the petitioner's father wrote a letter to the respondent's father explaining the situation and asked the respondent's father to take his daughter away for sometime. Thereafter, on 30th June, 1968, the respondent gave birth to a female child named ruma. It is alleged that the news of the child's birth was not conveyed to the petitioner/husband by the respondent/wife or her parents. In fine it appears that the case for cruelty as made out in the petition is one that the respondent/wife was not agreeable to continue to live in the joint family as she was the nagging wife, namely (a) she allegedly state that the petitioner/ husband had affairs with other ladies (b)she reported falsely to the police (c) she made rows in the office of the petitioner and (d) wrote letter to the officer of the petitioner/husband making allegations therein against the petitioner/husband. 3. WRITTEN statement was filed denying the allegations made. It is however not denied that the respondent/wife did say why the husband is returning home late and narrated what the husband told her soon after the date of marriage about his affairs with another beautiful girl. In so far as the filling of diary against the petitioner/husband in police station, application before the Officer of the Income-Tax Department, it is stated, she was agreeable to go back and wanted intervention of the higher authority so that she could live a peaceful married life. It appears between 1967 and 1970 there was number of occasions for reconciliation but which failed. According to the petitioner/husband this failed because the respondent/wife was insisting on proceeding with the complaint made with the police and was not at all repentant. Mr. Roy on behalf of the appellant argued that the pleading as stated, though does not specifically mention the word "cruelty", all allegations have been made and if it is found that the allegations, if proved, come within the mischief of the word 'cruelty' as in section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act the petitioner will be entitled to a decree. Roy on behalf of the appellant argued that the pleading as stated, though does not specifically mention the word "cruelty", all allegations have been made and if it is found that the allegations, if proved, come within the mischief of the word 'cruelty' as in section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act the petitioner will be entitled to a decree. It appears to us that the word 'cruelty' though not mentioned in the pleading, the petitioner can prove those facts stated in the pleading and if such proof falls within the mischief of the word "cruelty", the petitioner may get a decree for divorce on that ground. 4. SECOND point argued by Mr. Roy is the standard of proof required in this matrimonial case. It is argued that the standard of proof as required in criminal cases is not required in matrimonial cases. The only question is whether the court is satisfied on the Basis of the probability of the facts and circumstances proved in the case. There is no doubt and Mr. Bakshi appearing for the respondent/wife has not argued the proposition as stated by Mr. Roy as wrong. We agree with Mr. Roy that in a matrimonial case the proof as required in the criminal cases, that is, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary. If the court is satisfied on evidence adduced before it that a case has been made out under section 13 (i to vii) and the court is satisfied on the basis of circumstances of the case, a decree in favour of the petitioner can be given. Next argument advanced by Mr. Roy is what nature of corroboration is necessary for a decree to be obtained under the Hindu marriage Act. Here also as propounded by mr. Roy in his argument, an absolute corroboration is not necessary but only some form of corroboration may be sufficient. To that extent also Mr. Bakshi did not argue that absolute corroboration is necessary. We agree in the facts and circumstances of this case that it is not always possible to get absolute corroborating evidence or contradiction of the evidence in matters which concern husband and wife as to what happened in the bed-room. To that extent also Mr. Bakshi did not argue that absolute corroboration is necessary. We agree in the facts and circumstances of this case that it is not always possible to get absolute corroborating evidence or contradiction of the evidence in matters which concern husband and wife as to what happened in the bed-room. If how ever the petitioner or the respondent is believed a slight corroboration is sufficient to uphold the contention of either the petitioner or the respondent in such matter then comes the main question what constitutes cruelty within the word in section 13 of the Act ? Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act but cruelty can be of two kinds-physical cruelty and mental cruelty. There is no allegation in this petition of physical cruelty. Mr. Roy on behalf of the petitioner contended that there was a mental cruelty perpetuated by the respondent's action after the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. On the evidence on record the court below came to a finding that there was no cruelty on which the petitioner could obtain a decree for divorce. 5. IN the Mulla's Hindu Law (page 788) it has been stated by the learned author : "merely showing that the parties are unhappy because of unruly temper of a spouse or matrimonial wranglings would fall considerably short of the conduct which can amount to cruel treatment. Nor would it be sufficient to show that the other spouse is moody, whimsical, exacting, inconsiderate and irascible. Incompatibility of temperament, mere neglect and want of affection, disavowal of love, wounding of the feeling or even expression of hatred and the like would not be regarded as of themselves cogent ground for relief; nor would meanness, stinginess, shift less ness or selfishness afford grounds for relief. Defects of temperament, like defect of health, must ordinarily be accepted for better or for worse. The acts complained of may be of a minor nature and continued for a short time. They may be due to circumstances of the moment and cause no real danger to life or health or future happiness of wife or husband. To amount to cruelty the acts must be of a more serious nature than mere wear and tear of married life. They may be due to circumstances of the moment and cause no real danger to life or health or future happiness of wife or husband. To amount to cruelty the acts must be of a more serious nature than mere wear and tear of married life. Nor would mere vulgar or obscene abuse, rudeness of language, opprobrious and offensive remarks, petulance of manners, austerity of temper, or am occasional sally of passion or of iltreatment per se constitute legal cruelty. " Now coming to the facts of this case it appears that on behalf of the petitioner/husband four witnesses were examined beside a doctor PW 5, who stated that because of the action of the wife the petitioner was suffering loss of weight, palpitation and low blood pressure and he was treated by doctor in 1967 during Puja stretching upto winter. It appears no reliance can be placed on the evidence of the doctor. He examined, according to him the petitioner in 1967 sometime before the puja, that is between October and december. No prescription has been filed. The doctor cannot say the exact date of treatment. He stated that he only remember that the petitioner came to him in 1967. He stated that by guess be checked the blood pressure 3/4 times and on each occasion blood-pressure was low. He stated that he knew the patient long ago in connection with his visit to the income-tax office. In totality of the evidence, it is quite clear, that this evidence was given without reference to the diary or prescription, and the same, after 10 years, cannot be relied upon. " 6. IT is nobody's case, and that though the evidence of doctor was produced, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffered due to nagging behaviour of his wife. The petitioner's brother who deposed as PW 1 said that there was a quarrel between husband and wife but they thought that this would pass off and he came to know afterward that the wife suspected his husband about the passing of the night with other woman and that the respondent-wife did not agree to live in the joint family. It is also stated and it is admitted fact that on 10th November, 1967 the wife was allowed to leave the premises not to return there-after. It is also stated and it is admitted fact that on 10th November, 1967 the wife was allowed to leave the premises not to return there-after. In these consequences a fetter written by the husband just after the date of her departure from his father-in-law's place on 11th November, 1967 gives a story which led to the breaking of the marriage. This letter was written by the petitioner to his wife. I quote the letter in full : calcutta 11.11.67. Dipali, I heard on Friday at night that you had gone away because your father and mother came to escort you. However, there is no difference between going on sunday and Friday. What I have said is that you will stay there until I write to you again. You, of course, know the reason for it You will tell your father that this arrangement has been made for inconvenience regarding rooms. You will stay there until any proper arrangement is made in the matter. Secondly, you Will inform me whether the thing which was likely to come into being on the 11th has happened If it does not happen during this month, you will inform me without delay. Because I do not want that any child etc. is begotten by me. I finish it here. Expect, your parents and brothers and sisters are all well. Tender my respect to the superiors and my affection to the juniors. "gora" to sm. Deepali Das, 32, Indrani Park, tollygunge, Calcutta-33 The other latter which was of 17th November, 1967 in which the husband wrote to the wife stating therein that she may contact him on telephone and give his office telephone number including the extension. Thereafter it appears nothing happened and there was letters exchanged by the respondent through her lawyer and the petitioner through his Solicitor which goes to show that the respondent was trying to come back and stay with their family and happily, but as she had not been taken and that she was in a family way and her father who was not affluent was asking for money for the maintenance of her when she was In her father's place. In reply to this if was to be found in Ext. In reply to this if was to be found in Ext. A 4 written to the advocate of the respondent by the Solicitor of the petitioner stating therein that to avoid further unpleasantness in the family your client should stay at her father's house till suitable accommodation is available for them. Moreover, it was stated, inter alia, that "there cannot be any occasion for your client's being pregnant and my client is eager to have her examined by a reputed gynecologists" In such circumstances it is quite clear even in 1968 and even thereafter there was no allegation of cruelty as against the wife by the appellant. In Ext. F 1 it was pointed out by Mr. Bakshi in his argument which is not printed in the paper book which was placed in the earlier suit no. 16 of 1973 of the Court of the District Judge, alipore the case made out was one of desertion but not of cruelty. All these taken together, it is quite clear that the petitioner failed to prove mental cruelty as against the respondent. In so far as the police diary and approach to the higher officer is concerned it is clear to me that this was made in desperation in order to save oneself from the consequence of living apart with his lawfully wedded husband and in the circumstances where her father was not affluent and was a pensioner. It does not appear to me at all a mental cruelty because the wife has not been provided for long 3/4 years without any money for maintenance and left at the place of her father. This cannot be in any case of mental cruelty by the wife against the husband. 7. MR. Roy on behalf of the respondent relied upon a number of decisions namely. AIR 1975 Supreme Court at 534 and AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 269 at paragraph 24 and 25. In the said judgment the fact was that the husband and wife parted company in 1958. Thereafter the husband was living with another wife and having children to the knowledge of the legally wedded wife. 15 years thereafter a suit was brought for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said judgment the fact was that the husband and wife parted company in 1958. Thereafter the husband was living with another wife and having children to the knowledge of the legally wedded wife. 15 years thereafter a suit was brought for restitution of conjugal rights. This was why in the said paragraph their lordships held that as for 15 years the husband and wife did not live together no useful purpose would be served by granting decree in favour of the wife because the marriage was irretrievably broken. The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act have not been made so that if it is found that the marriage has irretrievably broken divorce can be granted though there is cruelty, mental or physical if proved, the petitioner may get a decree for divorce. 8. IN my opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case the learned Judge was right in refusing divorce as we are of the opinion that the mental cruelty, on the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be proved by the petitioner. In the circumstances, therefore, the. appeal must stand dismissed and the appeal if hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R. K. SHARMA, J. 9. I have heard the judgment just now delivered by my learned brother and I agree with his reasoning's and conclusion. All the same, I want to make some observations and/or comments of my own in my own words. 10. THE appellant husband complains that his wife indulged in nagging. His grouse is that his wife used to ask him why he was (ate in coming home, why he was staying away from home till that at night and where and with whom he was spending his nocturnal hours. Now the question is whether such questions and persistent queries of a wife to her husband in the stillness of night, in her bed room can be characterized as nagging In my opinion not. Because firstly, when one enters into matrimony one surrenders a part of one's absolute freedom for the good of both, for the harmonious life of two. Therefore, one married person uan ask such a question of one's. partner, the two having agreed to make home with each other. Secondly, for such enquiry by one the material is always provided by the other. Therefore, one married person uan ask such a question of one's. partner, the two having agreed to make home with each other. Secondly, for such enquiry by one the material is always provided by the other. If one does not come fate, one does not have to answer any such question because occasion will not aries for asking' such a question. If one is late once in a while or occasionally for good and sufficient reasons, one can easily explain the delay without hesitation and without difficulty and without making a fuss about it. If such question are put regularly in the manner of dripping of water drop by drop, then the reason is not far to seek. The usual late comer will be usually asked the same question and he will have to explain his delay every night. To my mind this does not amount to nagging but asking fair and legitimate question by one partner-in-life to another partner. The days of male chauvinist and of male arrogance that he can return home at any hour of the night and his spouse has no right to ask any question but keep vigil and wait in bed expecting her lord's return, have long past. The male as well as the female will have to answer their spouse if they choose to come Late at night. Nowhere the appellant has said that he returned home on time. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent's questions were legitimate ones and well within her marital rights. Therefore, I hold, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no nagging at all. The appellant was providing the ground for legitimate questions and when such legitimate questions were asked, he suddenly takes umbrage at them and complains instead of trying to adjust his life pattern in the light, of his marital obligations. This he cannot be permitted to do This way he cannot be encouraged or allowed to take advantage of his own fault, own shortcoming, and own failure to give proper company to his wife in her own marital home. Instead of mending the fences of marital home he is seeking to end the marital home itself. This Conduct cannot be given the seal of the court in approval of. Instead of mending the fences of marital home he is seeking to end the marital home itself. This Conduct cannot be given the seal of the court in approval of. Another instance of cruelty pointed out to us is that the respondent lodged a complaint at the Thana to the S. P. Taking recourse to law or taking shelter of law or seeking the protection of the police can not be an offence at all. Especially when one opens his eyes and sees all around newly married wives done to death by various means for no fault of theirs or may be for some imaginary fault of theirs, the Court of law should pause, hesitate, and be the last institution to for did or look askance at the weaker sex when they approach the police for help or apprise them about their domestic troubles. In my opinion, in order to eradicate the social evil of doing away with young wives, and to protect the young wives from harm, the society at large and the courts in particular should in no manner discourage the young wives who are afraid of their safety and who apprehend trouble at the hand of their husbands or in-laws, to lodge a diary at the thana at the earliest opportunity. True, visit by the police might have caused some embarrassment to the inmates, but that by itself cannot be characterised as cruelty to the appellant-the appellant having suffered nothing except a visit by the local police. 11. YET another instance which is cited as a case of cruelty is a visit by the respondent to the appellant's office and writing of letters to his superiors. The reason why she went to his office and wrote two letters to his Officers is clear as day light and well explained. It is the appellant's callous conduct which led the respondent to go to his office and later write to his Officers. He was neither taking her back nor was giving her any money. Driven by want and neglect and in search of a remedy she visited his office and she wrote to his Officers. She could not even so achieve her purpose. But her actions, in my opinion, were motivated by his neglect and her necessity. He was neither taking her back nor was giving her any money. Driven by want and neglect and in search of a remedy she visited his office and she wrote to his Officers. She could not even so achieve her purpose. But her actions, in my opinion, were motivated by his neglect and her necessity. True, he sent a few rupees by M. O. which she refused because what he sent was a pittance and not enough to meet her bare requirements. Therefore, I cannot hold that by visiting his office and writing to his officers the Respondent inflicted any cruelty upon the appellant. 12. IT is alleged that by not wearing a veil as behaves a Hindu wife, she caused the appellant embarrassment and inflicted mental cruelty. But this allegation is not substantiated. He does not specify or detail any occasion on which her going without veil caused him an embarrassment. In fact, within the short span of her stay in her marital home, he rarely appears to have been present long enough in the house in day light hours to be subjected to any embarrassment. Nowhere in his letters written to her has he raised the topic of wearing or not wearing a veil. For that matter, in his letters he has not raised any allegation of mental cruelty by nagging either. What his letters show is that he wanted her to avoid being pregnant, failing that to take his medicine of choice 'pulsatilla', and/or to take recourse to such means as would expel the growing embryo from her womb. She refused to do that and that annoyed him because he wanted to make love not baby, so to say. Therefore, the allegation of not wearing a veil, which the respondent denies, does not appear to be true nor it makes the case of the appellant regarding cruelty any stronger It is submitted with reference to paras 24 and 25 in AIR 1981 AP 269 that when a marriage is irretrievably broken, it is better to end it than continue with the agony. In certain circumstances this advice is, no doubt worth its weight in gold. In certain circumstances this advice is, no doubt worth its weight in gold. But when the husband unilaterally for insufficient reason taking advantage of his economic independence and wife's economic insecurity wrecks the ship of marriage on the rock of his whimsical intransigence, as it appears to be in this case, to act according to that dicta or advice might mean giving premium to the party who wants to give a bad name to a dog and hang it. A party who is not at. fault, as I have found the wife not to be at. fault, cannot be penalised by acceding to the request of a party who is more of a sinner than sinned against as I view the appellant to be in this case. 13. LET me now conclude : Mr. Roy submits that not the individual effect of the allegation taken in isolation be considered but the cumulative effect of them all. Individually looked at I have found the allegations to come to naught. Therefore, when various naughts are taken together and added up to cumulative result can be nothing else than naught again. Looking closely at the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Appellant in its totality alongside his letters or his lawyer's letters written at various times, and in the back ground of the entire matrimonial scene laid bare before us, inclusive of the previously withdrawn suit, 1 hold that it is not a fit case where a decree for divorce can be passed. PRADYOT KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 14. AFTER we have delivered the judgment Mr. Roy applied for leave to appeal to the supreme Court under Article 134 (A) read with Art. 133 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion the question involved in this case is not a substantial question of law of general importance and we are of the opinion that is not necessary that this should go to the Supreme court for a decision. Therefore, we reject this application under Art. 134 (A) read with Art. 133 of the Constitution of India. Appeal dismissed.