Judgment :- 1. Petitioner-wife claimed maintenance alleging desertion and cruelty. Trial magistrate found cruelty and awarded maintenance. Finding that cruelty was not made out, revisional court set aside the award. 2. Magistrate noticed that respondent-husband, referred to the wife as a whore in some of his letters. This, to him was cruelty. Sessions Judge thought otherwise. According to the Sessions Judge the husband was keen to get back his wife, and consequent on her refusal to join him, in exasperation be used objectionable expressions in some letters. Sessions Judge noticed that the husband was entreating, the wife to return to him. reminding her bow happy they were together, and telling her how much he cared for her. Sessions Judge found that respondent-husband was unhappy at the loss of his child, which he thought was due to callousness of the wife and her relations in going to an incompetent doctor instead of going to a good hospital. In his letters he made it clear that he was willing to spend anything for her care and that of their child, It is seen from the letters, that the respondent was greatly disturbed in mind and the wife paid little heed to his advice. Husband appears to have told her that he intended to marry another woman, because she bad forsaken him. Sessions Judge found that these were threats, employed by the husband to rouse the envy in the wife, and get her back. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that revisional court is not justified in re-appreciating evidence, and coming to a different conclusion. Counsel is right. But. that is not what the learned Sessions Judge did. Revisional court found that the magistrate did not appreciate the law relating to cruelty. According to her, magistrate committed an illegality in approximating cruelty to use of vituperative language. Sessions judge was justified in this view. The total situation, the realities of life, the social strata to which parties belong, the measure of refinement attained by them, and akin factors are relevant in viewing the question. Each age, and community have their ethos and values. What would have been intemperate language in the Victorian age, would no longer be viewed the same in the closing decades of the 20th Century. Words which were taboo 50 years back, are common vocabulary today. What was indelicate in speech is today common parlance. 4. Each age, and community have their ethos and values. What would have been intemperate language in the Victorian age, would no longer be viewed the same in the closing decades of the 20th Century. Words which were taboo 50 years back, are common vocabulary today. What was indelicate in speech is today common parlance. 4. In judging words that passed between the husband and wife, court must reckon their social backdrop, personal situation, emotional stresses and life pattern. An ivory tower approach cannot be justified, when the court is judging a human being, in a life situation. Words in such context cannot be interpreted, as in a statute or deed. The pulse of life beats in the words spoken or written. 5. Respondent did use words which are not elegant. As a father and as a human being he was grieved at the loss of his child and had a feeling-perhaps unjustified-that the wife was callous and thus responsible for it. Apparently the wife had her way and paid little attention to the wishes of the respondent. 6. Sessions Judge found the respondent to be a simple person. He gave the details of his income correctly and stated that he needed only Rs. 150/- for his up keep. He retained the nomination for his Provident Fund and ESI, benefits, in the name of his wife. The evidence and exhibits show that he had given loans and rendered help to the relatives of his wife and that he was considerate towards her. Magistrate judged the case on the basis of some words used by respondent, without judging him and the situation in which he was and found cruelty. Law that envisions the unwed mother claiming maintenance for an illegitimate infant, the wife who falls from virtue once or twice entitled to maintenance, certainly does not envision so sensitive a wife. Nor, can a husband using a harsh or offensive word be regarded guilty of cruelty in law. Magistrate took a tunnel view of the situation, and misapplied the law. 7. Sessions Judge was right in thinking that the use of a harsh word, even objectionable, would not ipso facto be cruelty in law. Cruelty is as much a relative term as goodness or beauty. As long as it is not defined, so long it must receive an interpretation reasonable and consistent with situation in contemporary life. 7. Sessions Judge was right in thinking that the use of a harsh word, even objectionable, would not ipso facto be cruelty in law. Cruelty is as much a relative term as goodness or beauty. As long as it is not defined, so long it must receive an interpretation reasonable and consistent with situation in contemporary life. Sessions Judge was justified in the view taken. Revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.