JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the husband Madan Gopal against the judgment and decree of divorce granted against him in favour of his wife Smt. Savita by the learned District Judge, Udaipur on 14-8-84. 2. The parties are Hindus and their marriage took place at Jodhpur on 3-2-63 according to the Hindu rites and customs. The parties lived at Jodhpur for sometime after the marriage. At the time of the marriage Shri Madan Gopal was a matriculate and Smt. Savita had passed her Higher Secondary Examination. After the marriage, Smt. Savita continued her studies and passed her M. B. B. S. in 1969-70. She was appointed as a Senior Demonstrator in 1971. In 1972, a daughter was born out of this wed-lock. Later in June, 1973, Smt. Savita was transferred to Udaipur and stayed there till November, 1976. Then she was again posted at Jodhpur and remained there upto July, 1977 when she was transferred to Bikaner. On 26-9-77, Smt. Savita went away to Libya and from there she went to England. From England she came to India for sometime and during that time she filed the present application for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty against her husband on 30-1-80 and on the very next day i. e. 1-2-80, she went away back to England. 3. Her case for the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty was that her husband, whose father had already expired did not look after the business properly and used to squander away money and, therefore his mother removed him from the shop, that her husband used to quarrel with his mother and his brothers, as a result of which, he and the petitioner were turned out of the house. She further alleged that her husband was used to drinking and gambling. He used to return to the house at late hours in a drunken state and used to abuse and beat the petitioner. She also alleged that she used to get scholarship during her-studies in M.B.B.S. and the non-petitioner forced and compelled her to give him money out of that scholarship. She goes on to allege that in order to extract money from her, the non-petitioner used to come to the hospital where she was posted and compelled her by using foul language and threatening to give him money in the presence of her colleagues. She goes on to allege that in order to extract money from her, the non-petitioner used to come to the hospital where she was posted and compelled her by using foul language and threatening to give him money in the presence of her colleagues. Her case further was that when she was transferred to Udaipur, the non-petitioner used to come to Udaipur also and extracted money from her in the same manner and there also he used to come to the house in a drunken state and behave improperly and insult the petitioner in the presence of her neighbours etc. Her case further was that even when the daughter was born to her, the non-petitioner did not care for her or her daughter. According to her, the non-petitioner never arranged for the house-hold requirements nor did he look after the child or bring any clothes, toys, etc., for the daughter. Not only this, he continued to extract money from the petitioner and even told her that as she was a woman, she could earn by other means apart from her profession as a doctor. According to the petitioner, this behaviour of the non-petitioner made her life a hell and amounted to mental and physical cruelty. She had to suffer mental agony, insult and loss of prestige and was also scared about her own safety. The case of the petitioner further was that such cruel and improper behaviour of the non-petitioner caused her mental agony and she did not find it safe live in the company of the non-petitioner. She further alleged that recently, the non-petitioner had also applied for the custody of the daughter who was till now being looked after by the petitioner and in these circumstances, she was compelled to file this application for grant of divorce. 4. The non-petitioner admitted the fact of marriage and the birth of the daughter and also the fact of the different postings of the petitioner. He, however. denied that he acted in any improper or cruel manner causing any apprehension to the life or health of the petitioner. According to him, he never used to drink and never tried to extract money improperly from the petitioner. He of course, admitted that his business was not running smoothly and, therefore, he had asked for monetary help from his wife. According to him, he never used to drink and never tried to extract money improperly from the petitioner. He of course, admitted that his business was not running smoothly and, therefore, he had asked for monetary help from his wife. He denied that he used to gamble but asserted that he was properly looking after his business. His case was that it was the non-petitioner's father who had borne the expenses of the medical education of the petitioner. He denied that the petitioner got any scholarship etc. According to him, the differences between the couple arose for the first time when the petitioner got herself transferred to Udaipur against the wishes of the non-petitioner. The non-petitioner and the members of his family were not happy with the behaviour of the petitioner and in 1971 when the petitioner desired to separate from the joint family, he took a separate house and started living with the petitioner. He denied that he was ever turned out from the joint family house. He asserted that he was properly looking after the daughter and used to visit her at her maternal grand mother's place. He denied that he ever behaved in any improper manner with the petitioner in the presence of her colleagues or neighbours. He further alleged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner wanted to live dishonourable life as she was doing at Libya and the United Kingdom. The society in which the non- petitioner lives cannot approve of such a life as the petitioner was living at Libya and United kingdom. 5. He also raised an objection that the District Judge, Udaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner had wrongly alleged that the couple had last resided together at Udaipur. 6. On these pleadings. the learned District Judge framed the following issues : "1. Kya prathna patr ke para 2 (c), 3, 3(.) ke anusar prarthee sharahi. hai, jua khelta hai choti-choti bat par prartheenee ko upmanit karta awam marta peetata tha wa any logos ke same,- use upmanit karta tha wa raat ko madhosh hokar der se ghar lautta tha we ashleel gane gala tha jisse prartheenee ko atyadhik mansik santap hua hai ? 2. Kya prartheenee ki putri Prerna ke janm para prarthee nee kee prtyarthee ke pariwaar ya prtyarthee ne dekhhhal nahin kee 3. 2. Kya prartheenee ki putri Prerna ke janm para prarthee nee kee prtyarthee ke pariwaar ya prtyarthee ne dekhhhal nahin kee 3. Kya aprarthee ne prarthna patr ke oara-6 ke anusar prartheenee Rs. 10,000/- rupye prapt kiye jisse prartheenee ko bahut adhik mansik peeda, klesh wa santap hua ? 4. Kya prarthna patr ke para-6, 9 wa 10 mein ullekhit aprarthee ke vyavhar se prartheenee ko atyadhik mansik ashanti, santap awam peeda huj wa shareerik chatee ke sath-sath uskee samajik pratishtha ko aaghat laga wa use mratyu tak ka May paida ho gaya ? 5. Kya pakshkaran antim taur se bahshiya pati awam patni ke Udaipur mein rahe. Isliye is nyayalay ko prarthna patr sunne ka adhikar prapt hai ? 6. Dadarsee ?" Originally issue No. 5 regarding jurisdiction was framed on the objection taken by the non-petitioner but later it was amended on 2-3-81 and the burden of proving that the couple last resided at Upaipur and, therefore, Udaipur court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, was placed on the petitioner. 7. In support of her case, the petitioner examined six witnesses and also produced some letters said to have been written to her by the non- petitioner. On the other hand, the non-petitioner examined five witnesses. 8. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge decided issue No. 5 regarding jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner holding that she was able to prove that the couple last resided together at Udaipur. On issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he found in favour of the petitioner and held that mental cruelty was established. As a result, he decided issue No. 4 in favour of the petitioner and granted a decree of divorce in her favour by his judgment dated 14 8-84. It is against this judgment and decree that the husband has now come up in appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 10. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was wrong on the part of the learned District Judge, Udaipur, to hold that the parties last resided together at Udaipur. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 10. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it was wrong on the part of the learned District Judge, Udaipur, to hold that the parties last resided together at Udaipur. His contention is that even according to the petitioner Smt. Savita's own evidence, it appears that Madan Gopal only used to pay casual visits to Udaipur and such casual visits do not amount to residing and on the basis of such casual visits, the District Judge, Udaipur, could not come to a conclusion that the couple last resided together within his jurisdiction. He, therefore, urged that finding on issue No. 5 is perverse and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the finding of the learned District Judge on this count. Before I come to the legal aspect of the matter, it would he proper that the pleadings in this respect are examined a little minutely." The petitioner Smt. Savita has stated in the application that she was posted at Udaipur from 1973 to 1976 and the non-petitioner Madan Gopal used to come to her at Udaipur and stayed there for a day or two on each occasion. In the reply, which begins with the objection about jurisdiction the non-petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Udaipur, on the ground that the parties did not reside together at Udaipur and according to him, it was wrongly alleged by the petitioner that she and her husband last resided together at Udaipur. However, in para No. 6 of the reply, he has admitted that during the course of the posting of the petitioner at Udaipur, her used to visit Udaipur every month or in two months and used to stay there for two to three days on such visits. Therefore, on these pleadings, it could safely be concluded that the petitioner Smt. Savita was residing at Udaipur and the non-petitioner Madan Gopal used to visit her every month or in every two months and on such visits he used to stay there for two to three days. Now the question is whether those visits can be called only casual visits or can be taken as visits with the intention of residing with the wife. Now the question is whether those visits can be called only casual visits or can be taken as visits with the intention of residing with the wife. A distinction has to be made between a mere casual visit for some particular business or site seeing or merely for a change and a visit to a place where the other spouse is living for earning his or her livelihood and stay with that spouse for some days may be only two to three days, with the intention of living with that spouse. The first sort of visits can certainly be called causal visits but not the second sort of visits because in those visits, the primary intention is to live with the spouse and to reside with her or him whereas the first type of visits are with no such intention. When the non-petitioner himself admits in para No. 6 of the reply that he used to pay regular visits to Udaipur every month or every two months and stay there for two to three days on such occasions and further adds that he used to go there with the intention of looking after her, necessary inference according to me, must be that he used to reside with the petitioner at Udaipur during those days and such stay, in my opinion, must amount to the residing together of the couple as envisaged by Clause (3) of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage ?Act. In this connection, it will be proper to refer to Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1521 , where their Lordships have considered the question of residence and casual visits, after examining a few authorities on this question. Their Lordships observed as under : "The decisions on the subject are legion and it would be futile to survey the entire field. Generally stated no decision goes so far as to hold that "resides" in the sub-section means only domicile in the technical sense of that word. There is also a broad unanimity that it means something more than a flying visit to or a casual stay in a particular place. They agree that there shall be animus manendi or an intention to stay for a period, the length of the period depending upon the circumstances, of each case. There is also a broad unanimity that it means something more than a flying visit to or a casual stay in a particular place. They agree that there shall be animus manendi or an intention to stay for a period, the length of the period depending upon the circumstances, of each case. Having regard to the object sought to be achieved, the meaning implicit in the words used, and the construction placed by decided cases thereon, we would define the word -"resides" thus : a person resides in a place if he through choice makes it his abode permanently or even temporarily ; whether a person has chosen to make a particular place his abode depends upon the facts of each case. Some illustrations may make our meaning clear : (1) A, living in a village, goes to a nearby town B to attend a marriage or to make purchases and stays there in a hotel for a day or two. (2) A, a tourist, goes from place to place during his peregrinations and stays for a few days in each of the place he visits. (3) A, a resident of a village, who is suffering from a chronic disease goes along with his wife to a town for medical treatment, takes a house and lives there for about 6 months. (4) A, a permanent resident of a town goes to a city for higher education, takes a house and lives there, along or with his wife, to complete his studies. In the first two cases, A makes only flying visit and he has no intention to live either permanently or temporarily in the places he visits. It cannot, therefore, be said that he -resides" in the places he visits. In the last two illustrations, though, A has a permanent house elsewhere, he has a clear intention or animus manendi to make the places where he has gone for medical relief in one and studies in the other his temporary abode or residence. In the last two cases it can be said that though he is not a domicile of those places; lie "reside" in those places." The view I have taken also gets support from the decisions reported in Sirothia v. Sirothia, AIR 1974 Allah. 36 , Santosh Kumari v. Om Prakash, AIR 1977 Allah. In the last two cases it can be said that though he is not a domicile of those places; lie "reside" in those places." The view I have taken also gets support from the decisions reported in Sirothia v. Sirothia, AIR 1974 Allah. 36 , Santosh Kumari v. Om Prakash, AIR 1977 Allah. 97 , and Pritma Sharma v. Mohinder S. Bhardwaj, AIR 1984 P and H. 305 . In Santosh Kumari's case (supra), the couple had lived together at Dehradun only from December 26 to December 31 and still it was found that this amounted to their residing together at Dehradun, sufficient to give jurisdiction to that court. The husband was posted at Dehradun and the wife had gone to stay with him from December 26 to December 31. Such a stay of the wife with the husband at the place of his posting was not taken to be a mere casual visit but was taken to be a visit with the intention of residing with the husband. In Pritma Sharma's case (supra), it was held that where both the parties to the marriage were working at two different places having their separate residential houses, both places would be fit for the residence of the spouses. If the wife would go to her husband's place, to visit her husband, she can be deemed to be residing with him there and if the husband would go to the wife's place, he would be deemed to be residing with his wife at her place. Such visits of the wife or of the husband cannot be termed as casual or flying. On the other hand, such visits may be termed as temporary visits by both the spouses and such temporary visits have been held to come within the meaning of the word resides' and the word 'resided'. Reliance in this case was placed upon Mst. Jagir Kaur's case (supra) as also an almost identical case reported in Smt. S. Suroja v. P. G. Emmanual, AIR 1965 Mysore 12 . I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the visits of the husband to the wife at Udaipur in this case in the manner stated above, clearly amounts to their residing together at Udaipur. Jagir Kaur's case (supra) as also an almost identical case reported in Smt. S. Suroja v. P. G. Emmanual, AIR 1965 Mysore 12 . I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the visits of the husband to the wife at Udaipur in this case in the manner stated above, clearly amounts to their residing together at Udaipur. The learned counsel for the appellant had, however, placed reliance upon N.D. Mantri v. Kamala Mantri, 1980 WLN 584 and Jeewanti v. Kishan Chandra, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 3 but they are clearly distinguishable as those cases related to mere casual visits without any intention of living even temporarily at that particular place. 11. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that after 1976 when Smt. Savita was again posted at Jodhpur, the parties lived together at Jodhpur and therefore, they cannot be deemed to have last resided together at Udaipur. I have examined the evidence on this aspect of the matter and am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that it is established that the parties last resided together at Jodhpur after the transfer of Smt. Savita to Jodhpur. The evidence goes to show that after Smt. Savita's coming back from Udaipur, the parties did not live together at Jodhpur at all but Smt. Savita used to stay in a separate house at Jodhpur and not with the non-petitioner. In this connection, reference may he made to the statements of Snit. Savita and her mother Smt. Mohan Bai PW-2 Mohan Gopal has, of course, stated that they lived together at the family house for sometime after Stilt. Savita came back from Udaipur and thereafter Smt. Savita took another house on rent but his statement does not inspire confidence inasmuch as he does appear to tell lies so far as his visits to Udaipur are concerned. Savita came back from Udaipur and thereafter Smt. Savita took another house on rent but his statement does not inspire confidence inasmuch as he does appear to tell lies so far as his visits to Udaipur are concerned. As already pointed out above in para No. 6 of the reply, he had admitted that he used to go to Udaipur every month or every two months and stayed there for two to three days on such occasions but when he came in the witness box, he gave up this plea and adopted a new plea that he used to go to Udaipur in connection with his business in the truck, reach there in the morning and come back in the evening and he never stayed at Udaipur at night with his wife. Bhanwarlal, who is the father of the petitioner but who has chosen to appear as a witness for the non-petitioner also admits that on her return to Jodhpur on transfer from Udaipur. Smt. Savita first stayed in a house adjoining to the house of her-in-laws and thereafter, she used to stay at another house at Shashtri Nagar. He does not support the case of Madan Gopal that after the return, she stayed with Madan Gopal in his ancestral house as stated by him. It also further appears from the very trend of the statement of Madan Gopal that the relations between the parties had become so strained that their living together after her return from Udaipur was rather impossible. When Madan Gopal, who was aged 34 when he entered the witness box in July, 1981 states that he used to visit Udaipur on business trips almost every month but would not stay with his wife for a single night it clearly leads to the inference that the relations between the parties were such as their living together had become impossible otherwise a young couple could not be expected to have acted in such a manner as when the husband would visit the place of the posting of the wife every month but would not spend a s ingle night with her. Again the other members of the house of the non-petitioner have not been produced to support the case of the non-petitioner that on coming back from Udaipur, Smt. Savita ever stayed with the non-petitioner either in the ancestral house or in the separate house at Shashtri Nagar, which Smt. Savita had admittedly taken on rent on her coming back from Udaipur. In these circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned District Judge that the parties last resided together at Udaipur and, therefore, Udaipur Court had jurisdiction to entertain this application. 12. The only other question which has been agitated before me is whether it has been established that Madan Gopal was guilty of cruelty against the petitioner Smt. Savita. It may at once be stated that although in the application, physical cruelty in the shape of beating has been alleged by the wife but from the evidence of the witnesses, it has not been found to have been proved by the learned District Judge and the learned counsel for the respondent has also not challenged that part of the conclusion before me. Therefore, we have to confine ourselves to the question of mental cruelty. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the evidence can be divided into two parts. The first part relates to the improper and insulting behaviour of the non-petitioner towards the petitioner and the second part relates to the extraction of money. Smt. Savita has stated that Madan Gopal was used to drinking and came to the house late at night in a drunken state and behaved with her in an improper manner and such an indecent behaviour brought with her in an improper manner and such an indecent behaviour brought down her prestige amongst her neighbours etc. This statement is supported by the evidence of Smt. Mohan Bai, her mother. Dr. Suresh Gupta PW-3, Subhash PW-4 and Smt. Premlata PW-6. So far as Dr. Suresh Gupta and Smt. Premlata are concerned they aepose to the improper behaviour of the non-petitioner with the petitioner at Udaipur which is also supported by Smt. Mohan Devi and so far as his conduct at Jodhpur is concerned, it has been deposed to by Subhash. Dr. Suresh Gupta PW-3, Subhash PW-4 and Smt. Premlata PW-6. So far as Dr. Suresh Gupta and Smt. Premlata are concerned they aepose to the improper behaviour of the non-petitioner with the petitioner at Udaipur which is also supported by Smt. Mohan Devi and so far as his conduct at Jodhpur is concerned, it has been deposed to by Subhash. Dr. Suresh Gupta states that in 1975-76, be was preparing his thesis at Udaipur and used to meet the petitioner at her house and during those days, he found that her husband visited the petitioner and he also found that he would appear to be drunk and used to abuse in that state. His statement is corroborated by Smt Premlata who was the owner of the house, which was taken on rent by the petitioner Smt. Savita. Smt. Premlata states that whenever the non- petitioner used to visit the petitioner at her house in the night, she would hear the 'hall-gulla' and she also felt the smell of alcohol from the person of the non-petitioner. She further states that she used to tell the petitioner that such behaviour was not proper, she being a doctor. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Savita had already left Udaipur in 1976 and these witnesses Dr. Suresh Gupta and Smt. Premlata were examined in 1982 and 1983 respectively. There does not appear any reason why these two persons would have wrongly supported the petitioner if in fact they had not seen the behaviour of the non-petitioner as deposed to by them. Nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to discredit them. The presence of these witnesses at the house of the petitioner appears to be natural as Dr. Suresh Gupta was preparing his thesis during those days and Smt. Premlata is the landlady of the house, which was occupied by Smt. Savita was a doctor posted at Udaipur and if her husband used to visit her in the night in such drunken state as to cause annoyance not only to her but her landlady and her visitors, the behaviour would certainly cause mental agony to her. The behaviour of the non-petitioner with the petitioner was so not only at Udaipur but even at Jodhpur as has been deposed by Subhash who states that the non-petitioner used to come to the house of the petitioner late in the night and abuse and her sometimes he used to bring his friends and other women with him. 13. So far as the other aspect of the petitioner's behaviour is concerned from the statements of Smt. Savita and her mother Smt. Mohan Bai, it is clear that the non-petitioner had been trying to extract money from the petitioner. Not only this, he even tried to get money out of the relations of the petitioner, namely, her mother and her material uncle and this fact finds support from the letters admittedly written by the no-petitioner to the petitioner and P. W. 5 Dwarka Das, the maternal uncle of Savita who had advanced money to the non-petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the non-petitioner himself has stated that his business was not running smoothly and, therefore, he was in need of money and he had been asking for money from his wife and also tried to get money through her from her relations. Ordinarily if a husband who is in strained monetary condition asks for loans from his wife or her relations, it would not necessarily give rise to an inference that he wanted to extract money out of them but in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it appears that the only aim of the non-petitioner was to extract money from the petitioner and her relations and apart from this he had no love or affection with the petitioner nor did he ever provide the petitioner or her daughter with care and affection expected of a husband and a father. The petitioner has stated that the non-petitioner did not look after his business but used to squander money on gambling etc., and wanted to extract money from her for those purposes. She further states that the non-petitioner used to write to her letters only demanding money from her and would never write even a single line of any love or affection. She further states that he also compelled her to obtain money for him from her mother and maternal uncle and these facts are amply established by the evidence referred to above. She further states that he also compelled her to obtain money for him from her mother and maternal uncle and these facts are amply established by the evidence referred to above. It will be worth while to point out that the petitioner has produced five letters admittedly written by the non-petitioner to her. A perusal of those letters would go to show that in each and every of these letters, between the years 1972 and 1976, the non-petitioners had been asking for money and requesting the petitioner to send the money either from herself or to raise it from her relations. As already stated above, the parties were young those days and the letters do not contain a single word, which may be expected in correspondence between a young couple. These letters taken together with the fact that whenever the non-petitioner uses to visit Udaipur, he did not like to stay even for a night with his wife and according to his own statement, he would go there in his truck in morning and come back in the evening, also go to show that the petitioner did not get the love, care and affection of a husband but would only meet a person who wanted money out of her every time. Smt. Mohan Bai has stated that the non-petitioner had taken away all the ornaments of Smt. Savita and sold away about 25 tolas out of them. She further states that the petitioner had also taken her own ornaments and did not return the same. She further states that her brother Dwarka Das also advanced Rs. 5,000/- to him but he did not return this amount either. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination of Smt. Mohan Devi to discredit her in this respect. Shri Dwarka Das has also stated that on the request of the petitioner, he had advanced a loan of Rs. 3,000/- to the non-petitioner and no cross-examination was directed against him. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge cannot be said to be wrong when he drew the inference that the non-petitioner used to extract money out of his wife and her relations. 3,000/- to the non-petitioner and no cross-examination was directed against him. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge cannot be said to be wrong when he drew the inference that the non-petitioner used to extract money out of his wife and her relations. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that in all these five letters, there is no threat or coercion exercised upon the petitioner but requests have been made to her in very polite manner to advance money to the non-petitioner who was in strained financial position and, therefore, on the basis of these letters, it cannot be inferred that the non-petitioner only wanted to extract money out of his wife. I am unable to agree with him. No doubt the letters have been written in a very polite and begging manner but it is not what is expected of a husband from a loving wife.As already stated above, there is nothing wrong for a husband, who is in a strained financial position to ask for loan from his wife if she is in possession of funds or to raise money for him from her relations but raising money should not be the only affair between the husband and the wife. Apart from that, a young couple cannot be expected to exchange correspondence between them only with regard to the money matters and a husband who has any self respect would never beseech and request his wife in such a begging manner for money I have already stated above that the very fact that the non-petitioner used to visit Udaipur for the day and come back every time in the evening, clearly goes to show that he had no love or affection for his wife and he wanted only money from her. Not only this, it cannot be lost sight of that the non-petitioner was behaving in an indecent manner with his wife whenever he used to visit Udaipur as is stated by Dr. Suresh and Smt. Premlata. In these circumstances, the demand of money in every letter written by him, clearly goes to show that he considered his wife as a money making machine and wanted to extract money out of her. 14. The matter does not rest here. Suresh and Smt. Premlata. In these circumstances, the demand of money in every letter written by him, clearly goes to show that he considered his wife as a money making machine and wanted to extract money out of her. 14. The matter does not rest here. It has been alleged by the petitioner in para No. 9 of the application that the non-petitioner went to the extent of telling his wife that she was a woman and can earn money in ways other than her profession as a doctor. The allegation is clearly suggestive. Of course, the non-petitioner has denied this in his reply to this para but a reference to some other paras of the reply would bear it out that the non-petitioner was capable of making such suggestion also. Reference may be made to para 18 wherein towards the end of the para, he has stated that "the petitioner was leading dishonourable life at Libya and United Kingdom. In what circumstances, the petitioner is living in the foreign countries is best known to her but according to the non-petitioner such life style can only be said to be dishonourable". This fact further finds some corroboration in the cross-examination of Smt. Savita where she states that when the non-petitioner came to her at Jaipur in June-July 1975, he asked her to get a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her maternal uncle and also suggested that she was a girl and could earn in any other manner. The petitioner states that on hearing such a suggestion from her husband, sh. thought that it was not at all safe for her to stay with him. Such allegations and insinuations, which have been suggested by the non petitioner in his written statement or in the cross-examination of the petitioner, clearly support the allegation of the petitioner in para No. 9 of the application. 15. All these factors taken together would clearly amount to establish mental cruelty of the non-petitioner against the petitioner and the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in arriving at the conclusion. It is not contended before me that cruelty must only be physical cruelty. Mental cruelty is also as good a ground for a decree for divorce as physical cruelty. All these factors taken together would clearly amount to establish mental cruelty of the non-petitioner against the petitioner and the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in arriving at the conclusion. It is not contended before me that cruelty must only be physical cruelty. Mental cruelty is also as good a ground for a decree for divorce as physical cruelty. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned District Judge that the behaviour of the non-petitioner towards the petitioner amounted to mental cruelty and it was not safe for her to continue in his company. It would also not be out of place to mention that the disparities between the couple both mental as well as educational are factors to be taken into account while considering the question of cruelty. The petitioner had only passed her Higher Secondary Examination at the time of her marriage, but by her own efforts, obtained the degree of M.B.B.S. after the marriage and had established herself at some higher status in the society whereas the non- petitioner who was only a matriculate at the time of marriage did not endeavour to raise his educational status nor did he properly look after the business but squandered away the money he had from his parents and which had also extracted out of his wife and he relations. To crown it all, despite the demand of money, the non-petitioner did not bestow any care, affection or love on his wife or even his daughter and in these circumstances, the petitioner would certainly have mental agony and loss of peace of mind and the staying together of the couple in these circumstances, appear to be impossible. The learned District Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in granting a decree of divorce in these circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant had, however, urged that these facts only go to establish that the relations between the parties were not very affectionate but it does not amount to cruelty and as a matter of fact, they only betray the normal wear and tear of the married life and on that account, according to him, a decree for divorce should not have been granted. He placed reliance upon J.S. Sodhi v. Amarjit Kaur, 1981 HLR 331 , Sulekha Y. Kamala Kanta, 1980 HLR 564 , and Abha Astavans v. Suresh Astavans, 1984 HLR 74 but I am unable to agree with him. He placed reliance upon J.S. Sodhi v. Amarjit Kaur, 1981 HLR 331 , Sulekha Y. Kamala Kanta, 1980 HLR 564 , and Abha Astavans v. Suresh Astavans, 1984 HLR 74 but I am unable to agree with him. The abnormal behaviour of the non-petitioner with the petitioner in the presence of his colleagues and landlady, the consistent demand of money and the manner in which that money was being squandered away does not show mere normal wear and tear of a married life but in the light of the circumstances already pointed out, clearly amount to mental cruelty. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel are clearly distinguishable on the facts. 16. No other ground was pressed before me. In these circumstances, the appeal is without any substance and is hereby dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******