ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J. -- 1. This appeal arises out of an application of divorce filed by. the appellant under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the respondent Rekha (wife) on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty. 2. The case of the appellant in the lower Court was that both the parties are employed as teachers in the Education Department. The appellant is resident of Sanawad and the respondent is resident of Dakhalgaon. They both are Hindu Brahmins and are married in Sanawad in the month of May, 1980. At the time of the marriage the appellant was posted at Khargone, whereas the respondent was posted at another station. After the marriage the respondent resided with the appellant till June 1980 as husband and wife. Thereafter she deserted the appellant clearly saying that she will not return to the house of her husband and thereafter through her behaviour had been causing mental torture and cruelty to the husband and the members of his family. 3. The respondent Smt. Rekha denied all the allegations made by the appellant in respect of desertion and cruelty. According to her she was willing to return to the house of her husband and has not treated the husband or any of his family members with cruelty. She was always willing and still willing to live with the husband. 4. On the aforesaid averments the learned lower Court framed five issues to decide the suit and held that the respondent has not deserted the appellant since 1980 and she has not treated the appellant with cruelty. She did not make any allegations against the character o afthe husband and, therefore dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Waghmare challenges the findings of the learned lower Court on every issue. According to Shri Waghmare the judgment is based on improper appreciation of the evidence. 6. On the other hand Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel argues that the learned lower Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has not erred in any way in dismissing the suit. 7. The petitioner in support of his case has stated on oath that the petitioner was accused by the respondent that he was having illicit relations with a lady and propagated the same. Secondly she did not attend the mother of the appellant when she was seriously ill. 7. The petitioner in support of his case has stated on oath that the petitioner was accused by the respondent that he was having illicit relations with a lady and propagated the same. Secondly she did not attend the mother of the appellant when she was seriously ill. On the contrary she made attempts to secure the transfer of the appellant and told the mother of the appellant that she will secure the transfer of her husband. Even after the death of his mother she did not go for condolence and did not participate in any of the ceremonies although she was living in the same city and in the same mohall a where the appellant was living. On many occasions she insulted the appellant. On the second day of Dussera she entered the house of the appellant and broke her mangal sutra and threw it at the appellant. She also broke the bangles and caused great humiliation to the appellant and gave an impression that she has become a widow. She also gave push to the appellant while riding a bicycle in Khargone. The appellant was a Director of a Co-operative Society which runs a cloth shop. The respondent went there and humiliated the appellant and there she broke a coconut and said that she has become a widow. She also visited the school of the petitioner and she told the Principal that the appellant be driven out from the school. She also told the principal that her husband has run away from the house. 8. The appellant has further stated that during the Satyallarayan Katha she forcibly entered the house of the appellant and threw chappal at the petitioner and ran away. She was also dressing in white clothes without sindhoor in her hair partition and had managed to send a money order through his sister wherein the address was written as Smt. Rekha Sharma, widow of Mahendra Sharda, Brahmanpuri. 9. The witnesses examined by the appellant P.W. 6 Surendra Sharda, P.W. 7 Madanlal, P.W. 4 Mahesh, P.W. 5 Jagdish and P.W. 2 Gendalal have given their statements corroborating the testimony of the petitioner. Now, as regards P.W. 2 Gendalal he states that Rekha had visited the school and told the Principal to send her husband out, upon which the Principal asked the appellant to go out. Now, as regards P.W. 2 Gendalal he states that Rekha had visited the school and told the Principal to send her husband out, upon which the Principal asked the appellant to go out. Similarly Balkrishna Badole P.W. 3 also states that Rekha suddenly came in the bada at the time of the katha, lifted the earthen water container, threw it and broke it. She also hurled chap pal at Mahendra the appellant. P.W. 4 Mahesh Vyas was present at the house of the appellant when Rekha visited the house and threw the mangal sutra at the appellant, broke the bangles and asserted that there was no relation between them. 10. P.W. 5 Jagdish is the Manager of the Cloth Shop which was visited by Rekha. She purchased some cloth saying that her husband is Mahendra. She also told that her husband did not purchase cloth for her and got the bill prepared in the name of her husband. The next time she went to the shop, she broke a coconut and distributed it amongst the persons present and said that this is the prasad of her being a widow. P.W. 6 Surendra Sharma, who is the brother of the appellant, states that Rekha did not attend his mother when she was ill. She also did not attend the wedding of his sister and she wore white saris and she also threatened that she will burn the whole Sharda family. 11. In rebuttal Smt. Rekha has examined herself as N.A. 5. She states that she was with her husband during the summer vacation and when her school reopened on 30.6.80 she went from Khargone to Dhakalgaon to join her duty. Her treatment all through and her stay in the house of her husband was cordial with her husband and mother-in-law .Her mother-in-law died on 1.12.80 because she was suffering from cancer. She denies that she at any point of time behaved with cruelty with her husband or humiliated him. She never deserted her husband. She further states that she got herself transferred to Khargone and she went to the house of her husband, but he did not allow her to enter the house. Thereafter she served a notice Ex. 10 through her Advocate, the reply of which was received (Ex.D-11). In Ex. She never deserted her husband. She further states that she got herself transferred to Khargone and she went to the house of her husband, but he did not allow her to enter the house. Thereafter she served a notice Ex. 10 through her Advocate, the reply of which was received (Ex.D-11). In Ex. D-11 the appellant has said that she should come and stay with the appellant within ten days failing which he will file a suit for divorce. Thereafter she went with Bankimchandra Joshi and then with Laad to live with her husband, but the husband did not keep her. They lived as husband and wife only for 15 or 20 days. At that time also the husband used to come at 3 O' clock in the night and used to ill treat her. She did not make any allegations against her husband. 12. Smt. Rekha has further deposed that actually her husband wanted her to give the full pay to him. Therefore, she sent a money order for Rs. 500/- which was refused by the husband because he wanted the full salary. As she was not informed about the death of her mother-in-law and the marriage of her sister-in-law she did not go on those occasions. She also made allegations that the appellant wants to get a share of her paternal house at Sanawad. She states that after September, 1980 she did not go to the house of the appellant because on 18th September, 1980 the appellant had turned her out of the house. She had also made an application to the Education Department that her husband had turned her out and that he should be transferred to Sanawad, whereupon her husband was transferred to Sanawad. She was confronted with her written statement where she has not stated that she was turned out by her husband from the house on 18.9.80, but she is not in a position to state as to how it was not mentioned in the written statement. 13. The respondent Smt. Sharda has further stated that after 20.7.1983 she had gone to the house of the appellant; to the school of the appellant. However, she states that the door of the house was closed. She denies to have written the letter Ex. P-l. Ex. P-2 is in the handwriting of her sister. In Ex. 13. The respondent Smt. Sharda has further stated that after 20.7.1983 she had gone to the house of the appellant; to the school of the appellant. However, she states that the door of the house was closed. She denies to have written the letter Ex. P-l. Ex. P-2 is in the handwriting of her sister. In Ex. P-2 it is written that Smt. Rekha Sharma widow of Mahendra Sharda. She admits to have written Ex. P-3. In letter Ex. P-6 also the address is written by her. However, she did not send this letter to the appellant. She admits that she got the bill at the cloth shop in the name of her husband. She did so for getting the rebate. When asked about the throwing of mangal sutra in cross-examination she says that her husband had not given any mangal sutra at all, but she had to put on a mangal sutra which she had purchased herself. She admits that mangal sutra is put in the neck of the bride at the time of the marriage, but as her husband had not brought the mangal sutra she did not wear it on the day of marriage she admits that she met her husband in the school but she denies the allegation that she asked the Headmaster to turn out the husband from the school to meet her. As regards the residence of her husband with her at Sanawad, she explains that the husband could stay with her at Sanawad and could also shift his mother, who was suffering with cancer with him. 14. She has also examined four witnesses in support of her case. N. A. W. 1 Makhanlal Laad states in para 5 that he had performed the marriage on behalf of the respondent Smt. Rekha, being elder to her. The appellant had told in his presence that the behaviour of the respondent is not good with him. Thereafter he advised both of them that they should improve their relations, but the relations deteriorated. A notice was received from the petitioner saying that if the respondent comes to the house of the respondent within a month he will keep her. Then he took the respondent to the house of the appellant at Khargone, but he refused to keep Rekha with him. A notice was received from the petitioner saying that if the respondent comes to the house of the respondent within a month he will keep her. Then he took the respondent to the house of the appellant at Khargone, but he refused to keep Rekha with him. He is not able to remember whether he took tea at the house of Mahendra when he went there with Rekha. According to this witness Mahendra asked Rekha to stay at the door, so she stayed there and he went to the house of Mahendra and came back after talking to Mahendra. 15. NA.W. 2 Kedarnath Billore states that in the year 1985 he had met Mahendra. At that time Mahendra told him that Rekha Sharma has written a letter to him. Mahendra told that the letter of Rekha stated that he had met with an accident. N.W.3 Bankim Joshi states that Rekha is the daughter of his friend. Rekha had gone to him with a notice saying that Mahendra Sharda had called him and, therefore, he had gone to Mahendra Sharda with Rekha. At that time Mahendra was not in his house. When Mahendra came he said to Mahendra that Rekha has come to your house, but Mahendra did not allow Rekha to enter the house. Mahendra said that he cannot keep Rekha with him. NA W -4 Fathelal Verma states that he had not seen any male person going to the house of Rekha and he resides in the same locality where Rekha resides. 16. From the above evidence it is manifest that on the one hand there are allegations of desertion and cruelty, whereas on the other hand these facts have been denied and on the contrary it has been pleaded that it is the husband who is not keeping the wife. Now, the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence has disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses of the appellant and has believed the testimony of the witnesses of the respondent and, therefore, it has held that a case of divorce is not made out. In view of the aforesaid evidence one fact is undisputed that Smt. Rekha lived with her husband after the marriage only for 15 to 20 days and left the house in June, 1980. Since then there has been no cohabitation till the filing of the divorce petition. In view of the aforesaid evidence one fact is undisputed that Smt. Rekha lived with her husband after the marriage only for 15 to 20 days and left the house in June, 1980. Since then there has been no cohabitation till the filing of the divorce petition. Even after her transfer to Khargone although she resided in the same Mohalla where the husband lived, but still they lived separately. It is also admitted that the money order coupen Ex. P. 2 was written by the sister of Rekha wherein the sender's name has been written as Rekha Sharma widow of Mahendra Sharda. There is no dent in the statement of Jagdish (P.W. 5) when he says that a scene was created by Rekha in the shop and she had said that the coconut is the prasad of her being a widow. 17. Similarly as regards the school incident the testimony of Mahendra stands corroborated by the statement of P. W. 1 Gendalal and the statement of Rekha partially admitting of going to school docs not falsify the aforesaid statements of P. W. 1 Gendalal and that of the appellant. The statement of appellant Mahendra supported by the statement of Balkrishna in respect of breaking the earthen water container and hurling chappal at Mahendra cannot be brushed aside being false and without any foundation. P.W. 4 Maheshkumar has also corroborated the statement of the appellant in respect of breaking of bangles and throwing the mangal sutra. 18. The lower Court has rejected the evidence of the witnesses of the appellant holding them as interested witnesses. About the school incident the evidence has been disbelieved because the Principal has not been examined. According to the lower Court the appellant has not been able to establish the case of cruelty to the hilt. However, the lower Court has not taken into consideration the money order coupen whereas the testimony of the witnesses about the willingness of Rekha to live with her husband has been believed. 19. Now as regards desertion the Court of England in Pardy v. Pardy [( 1939) 3 All E.R. 779)] has held that animus deserendi has to be gathered from the facts of each case and the case should be viewed from angle whether there is a bona fide willingness to live in cohabitation. 19. Now as regards desertion the Court of England in Pardy v. Pardy [( 1939) 3 All E.R. 779)] has held that animus deserendi has to be gathered from the facts of each case and the case should be viewed from angle whether there is a bona fide willingness to live in cohabitation. Whether these conditions exist during the relevant period is a question of fact in each case and inference can be drawn from the words and conduct of the parties. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.C. Dastalle v. Mrs. S. Dastane ( AIR 1975 SC 1534 ) has held that when a petitioner alleges cruelty such a charge has not to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with contacting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists. If on weighing the various probabilities he find that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the Court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Neither S. 10 nor S. 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act envisages that the petitioner must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. S. 23 confers on the Court the power to pass a decree if it is satisfied on matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the section and the word 'satisfied' in S. 23 should be construed to mean satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. S. 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases. In the same judgment the Supreme Court has held that cruelty would include harm or injury to health reputation, working career or the like. It is not necessary that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. In the same judgment the Supreme Court has held that cruelty would include harm or injury to health reputation, working career or the like. It is not necessary that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Therefore, what the Courts must determine is not whether the petitioner has proved the charge of cruelty having regard to the principles of English law, but whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 21. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Dr. Keshaorao Krishnaji Londhe v. Mrs. Nisha Londhe, AIR 1984 Born. 413 has held that the cruelty contemplated under S. 13 (1) (1-a) of the Act neither attracts old English doctrine of danger nor the statutory limits embodied in old S. 10 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty contemplated is a conduct of such type that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The conscience of the Court should be satisfied to believe that the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of one of the spouses that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. The cruelty admits within its ambit acts that might even cause mental agony. 22. Now, the evidence in the present case has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid principle and then it has to be held whether the evidence led by the appellant is such which may lead a prudent and reasonable man to hold it probable. The appellant and the respondents are teachers. They were married over a decade back. Out of this matrimonial relationship they lived as husband and wife only for 20 to 25 days. Thereafter it is a story of quarrels, disputes and without any attempt of reconciliation on the part of the parties or the guardians and relatives who have examined themselves as witnesses. They were married over a decade back. Out of this matrimonial relationship they lived as husband and wife only for 20 to 25 days. Thereafter it is a story of quarrels, disputes and without any attempt of reconciliation on the part of the parties or the guardians and relatives who have examined themselves as witnesses. It is undisputed that the mother of the appellant was suffering with cancer and the wife got the husband transferred from his paternal home to the place where she was living which the appellant resented very much because his mother was suffering with cancer and he did not want to leave his mother alone in such an ailment. The explanation which has come from the wife is that at Sanawad the husband and wife can live peacefully and the mother could also be shifted to Sanawad, i.e. shifting a cancer patient from the Distt. Headquarter to a Tahsil place to which naturally the husband did not agree. In Indian society when a wife declares herself as a widow or behaves like one, it is treated as a very bad omen and it is believed that such a woman wants the death of her husband. It is highly probable that the sister of the wife sent a money- order in the coupen of which she mentioned the senders name as Rekha Sharma widow of Mahendra Sharda. In the sentimental society such a thing is highly offending. Similarly if the mangal sutra is thrown and the coconut is broken that is also treated as bad omen. Hurling abuses or causing humiliation to a husband by the wife is also not viewed with approval in the present day society. 23. Now the main question which has also to be considered for appreciating the evidence and conduct of the parties is as to why after 15 or 20 days of the Marriage this separation took place without any reconciliation for over a decade. It is not a case of the wife that the husband wanted dowry or he has relation with some other woman which had caused him to keep the wife away. When marriages are performed they are not for a period of few days, but it is a life-long tie. But unfortunately nothing has come on record to show that there was any ulterior motive on the part of the husband to keep his wife away. When marriages are performed they are not for a period of few days, but it is a life-long tie. But unfortunately nothing has come on record to show that there was any ulterior motive on the part of the husband to keep his wife away. On the contrary, it appears, that the problem has started on the point whether husband should live with his wife at Sanwad or continue to live with his family. It is true that the wife being a Government servant had to attend to her duties but when the mother-in-law was suffering with a deadly ailment like cancer she could always take some leave and go back to her in-laws to serve the mother and be with the family. But it appears that the initial attitude of the wife put a scar on the matrimonial relationship and thereafter the problems started which were aggravated when the wife got the husband transferred to Sanawad and thereafter the money-order receipt, throwing the mangal sutra, humiliation all followed. The relation instead of improving deteriorated day-by- day to such an extent that living in the same city and in the same mohalla the husband and wife could not live together. In such circumstances the inescapable conclusion is that the allegations made by the husband in respect of the behaviour of the wife and humiliation is highly probable due to which the discord in the relationship was aggravated. Therefore, the approach of the learned trial Court in holding that the charges are not sufficiently proved while assessing the evidence of the petitioner is erroneous and not based on the principle of appreciation of evidence on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities to a prudent man. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that the charge of cruelty is proved against the respondent. 24. However, as regards the desertion, the evidence shows that at a later part of the time in reply to the notice the respondent did approach the appellant for living with him and it has also not been proved that her intention was to desert her husband for ever. On the contrary it appears that her main intention was that the husband instead of living with his family should live with her. As such the charge of desertion cannot be held to be proved. 25. On the contrary it appears that her main intention was that the husband instead of living with his family should live with her. As such the charge of desertion cannot be held to be proved. 25. In the result it is held that the appellant has been able to prove the factor of cruelty and as such the ground under S. 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act is proved, but the appellant has failed to prove the charge under S. 13 (1) (ib). As such the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce under the provisions contained in S. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. I am also satisfied that the husband is not in any way taking advantage of his own wrong or disability for getting the relief and there is no collusion between the parties and there is no legal impediment in granting the relief including that of laches. Consequently the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The decree passed by the lower Court dismissing the divorce petition of the appellant is set aside, instead a decree of divorce IS granted in favour of the petitioner-appellant against the respondent for divorce under S. 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.