KAPUR, J.—The husbands petition for grant of divorce has been accepted by the Judge Family Court, Jaipur, by his order, dated, 8th June 1990, against which the wife, Pushpa Devi has preferred this appeal. (2) The facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondent were married according to the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1977 and a son was born on 21.10.1978 and a daughter was born on 24.2.1980. They lived together at Jaipur, where the husband respondent is working in the office of the Director General Police. The appellant was found to be suffering from tuberculosis and for her treatment she stayed for quite some time at Delhi with her parents, and her treatment was done at Jaipur also. Details about their married life shall be seen lateron and here it may be said that the parties parted company on 9.4.1988 and soon after this on 11.4.1988, the petition for divorce was presented before the court. The initial grounds on which the petition was based were amended and some new grounds were added after the appellant filed her reply. The manner in which the final separation took place shall be seen later, but it may be said that according to the respondent, the appellant and her son were taken away by the appellants mother, while according to the appellant she and her son were thrown out of the house. The learned Judge, Family Court framed a number of points, on the basis of the circumstances pointed out by both the parties and on the basis of evidence held that the behavior of the appellant was one of cruelty towards the husband and this cruelty fell within the scope of matrimonial cruelly, on basis of which a decree of divorce could be granted. (3) According to the facts narrated in the un-amended petition, the appellant became unwell soon after her delivery and it was learnt that she was suffering from some infection disease. Her mother took away her along with the child for purposes of treatment. Baby son was also admitted to the Hospital on account of liver tuberculosis and during this period the respondent husband kept on visiting his wife and son at Delhi. It was learnt that the wife was also suffering from liver tuberculosis and according to the respondent-husband this fact was concealed from him at the time of marriage. Baby son was also admitted to the Hospital on account of liver tuberculosis and during this period the respondent husband kept on visiting his wife and son at Delhi. It was learnt that the wife was also suffering from liver tuberculosis and according to the respondent-husband this fact was concealed from him at the time of marriage. After about two years, the appellant came to Jaipur, but the son remained at Delhi and the appellants mother refused to part company with the child. Again at the time of next delivery in Feb. 1980 the mother and child, both became unwell and remained admitted in the Hospital and the mother of the appellant was also called. Then the appellant was taken to Delhi where she remained admitted in Hospital. She was able to come back Jaipur only after two years and her treatment continued at Jaipur in various Hospitals. Coming to the grounds, it was mentioned that when the appellant came to Jaipur in 1983 she became repulsive towards sexual intercourse and thereafter there was no relationship between the husband and wife. The appellant always insisted that the respondent should stay away from his parents and brothers, to which the respondent did not agree and because of this there was mental tension and unrest in the family. Things continued in this manner when the appellant again became ill in the year 1984. Her mother was informed, at that time the appellants mother made proposal that the respondent should marry his sister-in-law Laxmi as his wife Pushpa was unwell and this proposal was not accepted by the respondents father, even though one Ghanshyam Sharma maternal uncle of the respondent tried to pursuade the respondent and his parents. Because of refusal of this proposal it was alleged that the appellants mother was annoyed. The proposal was again made in Oct., 1987 & when the respondent refused the appellants mother started levelling false allegations about ill treatment etc. In the petition specific incident of 3.2.88 has been mentioned. According to the respondent on the day the appellants mother, brother, two uncles and some unknown persons came at the respondents house in the morning & staged a demonstration & started shouting false allegations and even threatened that they put the respondent to some harm. In the petition specific incident of 3.2.88 has been mentioned. According to the respondent on the day the appellants mother, brother, two uncles and some unknown persons came at the respondents house in the morning & staged a demonstration & started shouting false allegations and even threatened that they put the respondent to some harm. The appellants mother and uncles also threatened that they would get the respondent transferred to Barmer or see to it that he was dismiss from service. The appellant and her mother who remained back were pacified by neighbours and other relations. On the next day the appellants mother went to the house of the Superintendent of Police making allegations against the respondent. This also caused mental tension and agony to the respondent wrote a letter to his brother-in-law as to in what manner his mother had behaved. Then on 4.3.1988 the appellants mother came to the respondents house and obtained a letter from the appellant in which complaints were made against the respondent. Considerting all the circumstances the respondent was satisfied that he could not live with the appellant and therefore he wrote a letter to the appellants mother in the end of March, 1988 saying that it was impossible for them to live together, hence she should come and settle the matters about maintenance etc. by mutual agreement. Then on 8.4.1988 the appellants mother and brother Satish came there and they wanted to take away the appellant and her son and said that they were not interested in maintenance as they had enough of their own. The appellant also wanted to go and on their instance the respondent agreed to let them talk their son brijesh and on the morning of 9.4.1988 the appellant with her mother and brother and son went away to Delhi saying that she would never return and the respondent should not make efforts to get the custody of the son. As seen above the divorced petition was filed on 11.4.1988 on the ground that the aforesaid circumstances constituted mental cruelty. (4) In the reply submitted by the appellant most of the facts were admitted, but it was denied that she was suffering from any long and serious illness. According to her she was taken to Delhi for treatment at the instance of the respondent, who used to call her mother to Jaipur. (4) In the reply submitted by the appellant most of the facts were admitted, but it was denied that she was suffering from any long and serious illness. According to her she was taken to Delhi for treatment at the instance of the respondent, who used to call her mother to Jaipur. It was alleged that the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of loan for the construction of house and when her parents did not give this amount, she was illtreated and after the birth of her daughter, her mother-in- law kicked her in abdomen with the result that a cyst was formed and this required long treatment. According to her the respondent used to say that she was backward and old fashioned and used to force her to agree for a mutual divorce. The other allegations about ignoring house hold work, wanting to live away from in -laws, being indifferent to merital relations were all denied. In fact she stated in the reply that the allegations against the appellant show the perverse passionate mental desire of the respondent. No proposal whatsoever about the marriage of her younger sister with the respond was made. In fact every body wanted that the respondent should not insist for mutual divorce. In fect she made allegations of cruel nature of the respondent. The respondent wanted to be relieved with the burden of the appellant and has therefore concocted all the stories. (5) After the petition was filed there were some other developments. The appellant filed a criminal case against the respondent for the offence under section 406 IPC. Another complaint for defamation and application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was also moved by her & she filed a suit in forma pauperist for return of her stridhan. Besides this she made a complaint to the Director General of Police that the respondent had threatened her and her mother when they came to Jaipur to appear before the Family-Court. It was on account of these proceedings that the respondent filed an amended petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in this amended petition he has raised ground that the appellant has caused mental agony and tension on account of her behavior and the behavior pointed out is that she manipulated letters of complaint against the appellant. It was on account of these proceedings that the respondent filed an amended petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in this amended petition he has raised ground that the appellant has caused mental agony and tension on account of her behavior and the behavior pointed out is that she manipulated letters of complaint against the appellant. She made complaints to his officers and then by making a false allegations spoiled his career and by her conduct in filing criminal cases has made his reputation suffer and thus has caused mental tension. All these complaints were filed deliberately in order to cause worry and anxiety to the respondent. Hence these activities of her have been made basis of additional grounds for showing her cruel behaviour. (6) The learned Judge, Family Court framed one issue about the cruel behaviour of the appellant and recorded the evidence of the parties. While deciding the matter, the learned Judge, Family Court, divided the ground of cruelty under 16 different headings and proceeded to analysis the evidence on each points. (6) The learned Judge, Family Court framed one issue about the cruel behaviour of the appellant and recorded the evidence of the parties. While deciding the matter, the learned Judge, Family Court, divided the ground of cruelty under 16 different headings and proceeded to analysis the evidence on each points. These 16 points framed by the Judge, Family Court are as under :– 1- izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj foi{kh ds yhoj Vh-oh- jksx Fkk ftl dkj.k iq= ds tUe ij foi{kh vkSj iq= nksuks chekj jgs dkQh bykt djok;k x;kA iq= ds tUe ij Hkh foi{kh dkQh yEcs le; rd chekjh jghA rc ;g ckr Kkr gqbZ fd foi{kh ds yhoj Vh-oh- dk jksx Fkk vkSj ;gh jksx foi{kh ds iq= esa Hkh gks x;k izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj ;g jksx kknh ds le; izkFkhZ vkSj izkFkhZ ds ifjokj okyksa dks ugha crk;k x;k vkSj Nqikdj kknh dh xbZA 2- foi{kh chekjh ds dkj.k vius cPpksa dks lgh <ax ls ugha laHkky ikrh Fkh rFkk muds nw/k ukrs dh O;oLFkk ugha djrh Fkh] nsj rd dejs esa iM+h lksrh jgrh FkhA ;g lkjk dk;Z izkFkhZ vkSj izkFkhZ dh ekrk dks djuk iM+rk FkkA og vius cPps ds izfr kq: ls gh mnklhu Fkh bl otg ls cPpksa dks 4 lky dh vof/k ds fy;s fnYyh NksM+ fn;k vkSj iq=h ds izfr fdlh izdkj dk yxko ugha jgkA mls MkaVrh] ekjrh] ihVrh Fkh vkSj vius dejs esa ugha vkus nsrh FkhA 3- lu~ 1983 esa foi{kh fnYyh ls ykSVh rc lSDl ds izfr mnklhu jghA rc ls ;kfpdk isk djus ds le; rd izkFkhZ ds lkFk lgokl ughas fd;kA 4- kknh ds ckn esa gh foi{kh izkFkhZ ij vius ekrk firk ls vyx jgus dk ncko Mkyus yxh rFkk ,slk ugha djus ij vkRegR;k djus dh /kedh nhA 5- foi{kh dh ekrk ds }kjk vius NksVh iq=h ls fookg djus ds fy, izLrko izkFkhZ dks fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds }kjk vLohdkj djus ij ukjktxh tkfgj dh xbZ vkSj izkFkhZ ij >wBk ykaNu foi{kh dks ijskku djus] bykt ugha djokus o [kkuk ihuk ugha nsus ds laca/k esa yxk;s x;sA 6- foi{kh tc Hkh izkFkhZ ds lkFk jgrh Fkh mlus izkFkhZ ds lkFk vHknz O;ogkj fd;k mldh mis{kk dh rFkk mldks o mldh ekrk dks xans kCnksa ls lacksf/kr djrh Fkh foi{kh us vius ekStwnk tokc esa izkFkhZ ds fy, uhp] fod`r] dkeqd ekufldrk dk O;fDr gksuk crk;k gSA blls Li"V gS fd foi{kh izkFkhZ ds izfr fdlh izdkj dh vknj Hkkouk ugha j[krh gS izkFkhZ ds ;s kCn i<+dj dkQh ekufld larki gqvk vkSj Xykfu gqbZA 7- fnukad 3-2-1988 dks foi{kh viuh ekrk nks ekek o HkkbZ ds lkFk rFkk dqN vutku O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk izkFkhZ ds ?kj ij 8 cts izkr% vk;h rFkk izkFkhZ vkSj mlds ekrk firk vkfn dks xkyh xykst djds gaxkek fd;k ftlls izkFkhZ vkSj mlds ifjokj dh ekSgYys esa dkQh cnukeh gqbZA ifjokj dh xfjek dks Hkkjh vk?kkr yxk vkSj izkFkhZ dks Hkkjh ekufld larki gqvkA 8- foi{kh dh ekrk us nwljs fnu iqfyl v/kh{kd] t;iqj dks izkFkhZ ds fo:) >wBh fkdk;r dhA izkFkhZ iqfyl v/kh{kd dk futh lgk;d gSA bl fkdk;r ls izkFkhZ dks Hkkjh ekufld vk?kkr igqWpkA 9- fnukad 4-3-1988 dks foi{kh dh ekrk izkFkhZ ds ?kj ij vkbZ izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr esa foi{kh ls ,d fkdk;r i= fy[kok dj ys xbZA izkFkhZ dks jkr dks ?kjKkr gqvk blls foi{kh ds O;ogkj ls izkFkhZ dks dkQh ekufld larki o ruko gqvkA 10- fnukad 8-4-1988 dks foi{kh dh ekrk foi{kh dk HkkbZ lrhk t;iqj vk;s vkSj tcjnLrh foi{kh vkSj iq= c`tsk dks vius lkFk ys x;s rFkk tkus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks vkSj mlds ifjokj dk cckZn djus vkfn dh /kedh ns x;sA 11- izkFkhZ ds }kjk ekStwn ;kfpdk isk fd;s tkus ds mijkUr foi{kh us fnukad 24-8-1988 dks iqfyl egkfujh{kd] jktLFkku t;iqj dks izkFkhZ dks jktdh; esa uqdlku igWqpkus dh xjt ls ,d dkYifud o >wBs rF; ntZ djds fjikVZ nh xbZA blds vk/kkj ij iqfyl egkfujh{kd lh-vkbZ-Mh- ¼lh-ch-½ ds }kjk tkap djokbZ x;h tks >wBh ikbZ xbZ bl >wBh fjikVZ ls izkFkhZ dh dkQh cnukeh foHkkx esa gks xbZA 12- foi{kh ds }kjk phQ eSVªksiksyksfVu eftLVªsV] fnYyh ds U;k;ky; esa /kkjk 406 Hkk-n-la- ds vUrxZr ,d ifjokn i= fnukad 25-8-1988 dks izkFkhZ mlds ekrk firk o HkkbZ ds fo:) isk fd;k x;k ftlesa bu yksxksa dks csgn ekufld fpUrk o ekufld ijskkuh mBkuh iM+hA 13- foi{kh dh ekrk us /kkjk 500 Hkk-n-la- ds vUrxZr ,d bLrxklk fnYyh U;k;ky; esa isk fd;k ftlds leFkZu eas foi{kh us viuk c;ku fn;k ysfdu U;k;ky; ds }kjk vLohd`r dj fn;k x;k ftldh fuxjkuh lsku U;k;ky; fnYyh eas fopkj/khu gSA 14- foi{kh us izkFkhZ ds fo:) ftyk tt fnYyh ds U;k;ky; esa vius tsojkr o vU; lkeku vkfn dk ewY; izkIr djus ds fy;s 1]00]000@& :i;s dk nkok fnukad 17-5-1988 dks isk fd;k] tks fopkj/khu gSA tcfd izkFkhZ ds ikl foi{kh ds dksbZ Hkh tsoj ugha gSA 15- foi{kh ds }kjk /kkjk 125 n-Hk-la- ds vUrXkZr ,d izkFkZuk i= fnYyh U;k;ky; esa isk fd;k x;k tcfd bl U;k;ky; ds }kjk /kkjk 24 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds vUrxZr Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq jkfk fu/kkZfjr dh tk pqdh gSA 16- foi{kh us mijksDr leLr eqdnesa izkFkhZ dks cckZn djus] mldh ukSdjh esa uqdlku igWqpkus] ifjokj dks cnuke djus ds vkk; ls fd;s gSA buls ;g Li"V gS fd foi{kh fujUrj izkFkhZ ds lkFk dzwj O;ogkj dj izkFkhZ dks gj izdkj ls ijskku djus dks dfVc) gS rFkk i{kdkjksa ds chp oSokfgd laca/k vc iw.kZr;k VwV pqds gS vkSj mudk ifr iRuh ds :i esa jguk vlaHko gSA** (7) The learned Judge, Family Court did not accept that the appellant was suffering from lever tuberculosis prior to her marriage and that this fact was concealed from the respondent. At the same time it was held that the illness of the appellant was not on account of any kick or blow given by her mother-in-law in the abdomen. On the statement of the respondent and his mother and his father, it was held that the appellant was indifferent towards her children and she had no attachment towards them. Point No. 3 about the sexual aberration was not believed and on the point No. 4 it was held that the appellant wanted that her husband should slay away from his parents. On the point No. 5 it was held that the appellant had made false allegations against the respondent that the latter did not give him food and that she used to torture her for dowry and such false allegations amounted to mental cruelty. The manner in which the appellant treated her in-laws and used words for them was also held to constitute cruelty towards the husband. The incident of 3.2.1988 was also held to be proved wherein the appellants mother, two uncles and brother came at the residence of the respondent and created a scene levelling several allegations and at the same time giving out threats and this was also considered to be a ground for causing mental disturbance and tension. Points 8 and 9 were decided against the respondent. Under point 10, the learned Judge did not believe that the appellants mother and brother forcibly took away the appellant and her son Brijesh as the respondent had sent a telegram to the appellants mother to come to Jaipur to take away the appellant and Brijesh. The complaints to the officers in the department was also held to be cruelty towards the husband. As for the proceedings started after the divorce petition was filed it was held that the some were limited to the allegations mentioned in it and could not be said to be cruel behaviour. The complaints to the officers in the department was also held to be cruelty towards the husband. As for the proceedings started after the divorce petition was filed it was held that the some were limited to the allegations mentioned in it and could not be said to be cruel behaviour. Looking at the evidence as a whole the learned Judge concluded that the appellants behaviour towards her in laws was cruel and she herself admitted that she was not capable of looking after children and she did not look after them and she wanted that she should stay away from her in-laws and she made false allegations against her husband and her in-laws which all show that she and her mother were out to have their own way so much so they in 1987 went to the house of the respondent with other persons and created a scene and her conduct was such which caused mental torture to the respondent and that decree for divorce was granted. (8) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we even talked to the parties themselves in order to bring about a compromise between them but they could not reach a settlement either way. Before examining whether there are sufficient grounds to hold that there is proof about cruelty so as to entitle the respondent the decree of divorce, the oral and documentary evidence may be perused. We already have an idea about the manner in which the married life of the parties proceeded, within a year of their marriage the appellant gave birth to a son and soon after the mother and son became unwell and they had to be shifted to Delhi for their treatment. The child stayed at Delhi for four years while the appellant returned after some time and again gave birth to a daughter on 24th February 1980. Both the deliveries were delivered at Jaipur, but again the child was found to be ill and was hospitalised from one Hospital to another and then they proceeded to Delhi where the appellant underwent some operation. Thereafter for four years the appellant shuttled between Jaipur and Delhi receiving treatment at both the places. Both the deliveries were delivered at Jaipur, but again the child was found to be ill and was hospitalised from one Hospital to another and then they proceeded to Delhi where the appellant underwent some operation. Thereafter for four years the appellant shuttled between Jaipur and Delhi receiving treatment at both the places. According to the respondent the trouble started in July 1987 when the appellants mother came with her younger daughter Laxmi and made a proposal that the respondent should marry Laxmi, as the appellant was ill. The respondent refused to do so and upon this the appellant started ill-treating him and making false allegations that she was being ill-treated. Then came the incident of March, 1988 wherein the appellants mother and others came to Jaipur and created a scene and finally took the appellant away on 9.4.1988 along with the son Brijesh. In September, 1987 the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent from Delhi. Actual scribe of the letter is Laxmi, younger sister of appellant. Besides mentioning about her illness she has written that she remembers the respondent and both the children but was helpless because of illness and her illness was such that she had to take rest. She was worried as the respondent had not made enquiries about her health and stated that he should come and also look after the children. This normal letter does not contain anything about the strained relations between the parties. The only reference is about the helplessness of the woman on account of illness. Laxmi also penned a few lines in this letter from her side and also wrote a couple of couplets on behalf of the appellant. Again 29.10.1987 Ex. 7 letter was written by the appellant as well as Laxmi remembering the children and invited the respondent to come to Delhi. Ex. 8 was written by the appellant herself showing anxiety of not receiving any letter as winter was approaching . She worried about her children and she wrote that being an invalid mother she could not look after her children properly. She also mentioned that he had thought about living away from his parents and she mentioned that a mother should not be such who would poison the life of the son and daughter-in-law. It appears that the respondent did not write any letters during this period. His letter on record is Ex. 9 dated 20.2.1988. She also mentioned that he had thought about living away from his parents and she mentioned that a mother should not be such who would poison the life of the son and daughter-in-law. It appears that the respondent did not write any letters during this period. His letter on record is Ex. 9 dated 20.2.1988. This he wrote to his brother-in-law Kailash and is a typed letter. In this letter he has referred to the incident of 3.2.88 when the appellants mother came with some unsocial elements to his house to lower his prestige: The respondent further invited his brother-in-law to come to his house and instructed that they should not bring their mother along with them. He wrote that was it the duty of a wife to make attempts to kill her husband and in-laws and still remained peaceful in the same house. He suggested that in such tense situation the husband a wife should not live under the same roof. This shows that even on this date the appellant was living with her husband. The next letter of the respondent is Ex. 11 dated 8.3.88, which he wrote to his mother-in-law accusing her of obtaining letters containing false complaints against him from Pushpa, wife of the respondent. He accused her of coming to his house in his absence and forcing Pushpa, the appellant to write such letters and on the very same night she told about it to the respondent. That this action was done in order to spoil the relations between husband and wife and that she was playing with the life of innocent Pushpa. Such behaviour would come in the way of finding a suitable match for Laxmi. He wanted that his mother-in-law should keep her things away from his wife and children. When Pushpa was with the respondent, he again wrote a letter on 25.3.1988 to his mother-in- law Ex. 15 that his confidence in Pushpa was shaking and when they had no confidence on each other then why they should maintain relations with each other. He wrote that he had talked with Pushpa and she decided that she should spend her remaining life with her mother and the respondent would give some consolidated amount for the maintenance. He asked his mother-in- law to come to Jaipur. He wrote that he had talked with Pushpa and she decided that she should spend her remaining life with her mother and the respondent would give some consolidated amount for the maintenance. He asked his mother-in- law to come to Jaipur. On receiving the letter, so that all could sit together and finalise an agreement and this agreements would bring about place in both the families. The agreement would be written down with mutual agreement and there would be no necessity of going to Court. After writing this the respondent sent a telegraph on 2.4.1988 saying that on account of their illegal activities and attitude his mental worries were increasing and they should come and take away Pushpa and Brijesh and the decision of the Panchas would be acceptable to him. It was in pursuance of this telegraph that the appellants mother came to Jaipur and then Pushpa and Brijesh Proceeded to Delhi. While going the respondent wrote a note that Pushpa was going along with her mother and Brijesh and the ornaments she was taking were teeka and one nose ring along with her, he further wrote that they were going with the consent of both the parties. (9) The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on the basis of the allegations which have been raised by the respondent it cannot be said that the attitude of the appellant was such so as to amount to. mental cruelty sufficient to grant divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended that the appellant was an affectionate wife having regard for his husband and love for her children but unfortunately she was suffering from tuberculosis and had to remain away from her children and because of the illness could not attend her children and this helplessness of her has been mis- interpreted into indifference and dislike of her husband and children. It is contended that merely because she wanted to stay away from her in-laws it cannot be said that this was a cruelty on her part so as to allow the divorce petition. A number of decisions have been relied upon, which we shall examine shortly. It is contended that merely because she wanted to stay away from her in-laws it cannot be said that this was a cruelty on her part so as to allow the divorce petition. A number of decisions have been relied upon, which we shall examine shortly. It is contended that most of the allegations in the petition have been made against the appellants mother and if the respondent was annoyed by the proposal to marry with Laxmi then the appellant could not be made a victim of it. It is contended that every time the appellants mother came when she was called and she could not be said to be coming on her own accord. Earlier she was called to attend the ailing wife and son and then subsequently whenever there was any problem the mother had to come at the call of the respondent. She was not inter ferring in the married life of the appellant and the respondent but was made to come again and again, Even when the final breakup was near the appellants mother was called and she was asked to take away the appellant and Brijesh. The telegram Ex. 16 dated 2.4.1988 and the letter Ex. 15 dated 15.3.1988 supports this. It has been contended that the respondent was unnecessarily worried about the complaints alleged to be written by the appellant at the instance of her mother when actually there are no such complaints. The respondent wants to show that he was living comfortably with the appellant but her mother came there and forcibly took away the appellant and the son, but this is a made up story, which goes against his own letters. Whatever the situation, the respondent was tired up with his mother-in-laws interference and he wanted that he should be left alone with his wife and children but at the some time it cannot be said that the role of the appellants mother should be taken to be the role of the appellant in breaking the matrimonial home. The appellants mother may be having good points as well as bad points, but then they would not become good or bad points of the appellant herself. It is contended that the only aim of the respondent is to get rid of his sick wife and for this purpose he has all the stories. The appellants mother may be having good points as well as bad points, but then they would not become good or bad points of the appellant herself. It is contended that the only aim of the respondent is to get rid of his sick wife and for this purpose he has all the stories. (10) The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the parting of company on 9.4.1988 was far from cordial as from day today the circumstances were developed in such a manner that the respondent could not tolerate the behavior of the appellant and her mother. The respondent never grudged against his wifes illness for six years and got her treated at different places and he cannot be accused of wanting to get rid of his sick wife. His main grievance is that his wife wanted that they should stay away from his parents without any reasons and he could not leave his parents and younger brothers in order to satisfy the unjustified demand of his wife. Then they gave the proposal that the respondent should marry Laxmi younger sister of appellant and this was the further humiliation which made the matter worse. According to him this refusal enraged his mother-in-law and she started making false allegations. All this humiliation has resulted in mental agony and the incident of 3.2.1988 added fuel to fire. It is argued that the respondent was feeling unsafe as anybody from his wifes house would come and obtain false complaints from his wife. Some times complaints were sent to the officers and some time complaints were kept for creating evidence and in such circumstances he was suffering mentally on account of cruel attitude of his wife. (11) The respondent has stated that on 3.2.1988 the appellant, her mother, her brother and two uncles and two gunda type persons came at his house at 8.00 a.m. with a motor cycle and shouted that they would kill him and threatened that they would get the respondent transferred to Barmer. Neighbours came there and thereafter others went away while the appellant and her mother stayed back. The appellants mother also said that she had some persons who could kill him. He felt unsafe and he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law which we have already seen above. Neighbours came there and thereafter others went away while the appellant and her mother stayed back. The appellants mother also said that she had some persons who could kill him. He felt unsafe and he wrote a letter to his brother-in-law which we have already seen above. The witness to this incident is P.W. 2 Mohanlal and he has stated that four-five persons were standing and some were shouting inside. The appellants other was also there and she was abusing. He does not know about the appellant. He has not been able to give any reason about the dispute between the parties. P.W. 3 Ramgopal has also stated that on 3.2.1988 other relatives were quarreling at the house of the respondent and he learn that they were in laws of the respondent. P.W. 4 Purushottam Lal had gone to the respondents house to inform him about the death of his grand mother and there he saw that blue colloured Motor Cycle with Haryana number was parked and some persons were quarreling. According to him there was no crowed, people were talking inside the house and that he does not know what was the cause of dispute. The respondents mother P.W. 5 Kaushlaya has stated that the appellants mother, uncles, one brother and two gundas came at the house and started making noise and saying that they should kill him, with difficulty they managed to send them away and her daughter in law was stayed back. From this evidence it may be said that some incident did take place but then at that time the appellant was already at the house of the respondent and even after the incident she continued to stay there, hence the role of any other persons could not be attributed to the appellant so as to say that she had called persons to threaten the respondent and to disrupt their married life. (12). The only evidence which can be said to be a positive role of the appellants herself is that she wanted that she & her husband should stay away from his parents, can this persuasion be said to be a ground for divorce? Her desire to stay separate from her mother-in-law is evident from letter Ex.8. (12). The only evidence which can be said to be a positive role of the appellants herself is that she wanted that she & her husband should stay away from his parents, can this persuasion be said to be a ground for divorce? Her desire to stay separate from her mother-in-law is evident from letter Ex.8. Here was a person who herself was sick and needed attention of others but she was not satisfied with the type of life she was leading and wanted to stay away. What would have been the fate had they been separate, is not to be looked into, but it can certainly be said that the daughter-in-law was not doing work in their house, the mother-in- law could not be pleased with the situation and Would result in confrontation. We are not here to decide & to who should have adjusted in order to bring the peace and harmony in the home, but it is to be seen whether the demand on the part of the appellant to live separately from the in-laws house would amount to cruelty so as to become a ground of divorce. (13) In Om Prakash vs. Smt. Rajni (1), it has been held that demand by wife for separate residence from husbands mother docs not amount cruelty. It was observed : — "It is not that every time a wife says that the husband should live separately from his mother & the husband refuses to do so, it would be an unreasonable behaviour on the part of the wife & that it would amount to cruelty. A decision which affects both the parties and their children has to be taken together by the parties. It is the obligation of the parties to decide these questions by agreement, by give and take and not by the imposition of the will of the one over the other." In Smt. Maya vs. Brijnath (2), it has been observed as under : "Cruelly has not been defined in the Act. But it is now well settled that the conduct should be grave and weighty so as to make cohabitation virtually unendurable. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marriage. The cumulative conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and the background of the parties has to be examined to reach a conclusion whether the act amounts to cruelty. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marriage. The cumulative conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and the background of the parties has to be examined to reach a conclusion whether the act amounts to cruelty. The petitioner in a divorce petition has to prove that he was treated with cruelty. The burden of proving the cruelty lies on him." (14) A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Dr. Keshaorao Krishnaji Londhe vs. Mrs. Nisha Londhe (3), was to answer as to what was cruelty as a ground for divorce under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and it was held that the cruelty contemplated under Section 13(1) of the Act neither attracts the old English doctrine of danger nor the statutory limits embodies in old Sec. 19(1) (b). The cruelty comtemplated is a conduct of such type that the petitioner cannot be reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. (15) It is well settled now that cruelty is not confined to physical cruelty, but includes mental cruelty. The matrimonial alliance is irretrievably broken where one of the spouses persistently causes mental torture, disgrace and harassment it amounts to cruelty. (See Smt. Kalpana Srivastava vs. Surendra Nath Srivastava (4). (16) In Harbhaja Singh Monga vs. Amarjeet Kaur (5), threats of committing suicide by wife, slapping husband by wife and keeping the husband waiting outside the door of the house were held to amount to cruelty. (17) In Smt. Shanti Devi Raghav Prakash (6), acts of burning thesis of husband by wife, making allegations illegitimate relations of husband with another lady, were held to constitute mental agony, In similar circumstances the arts of the wife were held to constitute cruelty in Smt. Santana Banerjee vs. Sachindra Nath Banerjee (7). (18) In A. S. Paintal vs. Iris Paintal (8), it has been held that false and reckless allegations on the character of the spouse so as to injure his/her reputation amounts to cruelty. (19) Without a reference to Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane (9) would be incomplete case law. In this case it has been held that the burden of proving cruelty lies on the petitioner and further the standard of proof is not similar to that of criminal cases where the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (19) Without a reference to Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane (9) would be incomplete case law. In this case it has been held that the burden of proving cruelty lies on the petitioner and further the standard of proof is not similar to that of criminal cases where the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the threat by the wife to her husband that she will put and end the her own life or that she will set the house on fire, and that she will make him lose his job and the persistent abuses and insults hurled at the husband and parents had imperilled the husbands sense of personal safety, mental happiness, job satisfaction and reputation, were all amounting to cruelty. But at the same time it was held that there was condonation the part of the husband as they were leading normal life even after the acts of cruelty on the part of the wife, as there was forgiveness and restoration, which was taken to be evidence of condonation of cruelty. (20) Coming to the facts of the present case, we may look into the circumstances which according to the respondent constitute cruelty on the part of the wife against him. The only act of cruelty of the appellant can be said to be her desire to stay away from her in-laws. In what circumstances she made this request is not very clear. It may be unjustified, but this by itself would not amount to cruelty so as to make a ground for divorce. The appellant who was ill was getting treatment at Delhi as well as Jaipur and her parents as well as her husband, both were getting her treated for long spells she had to live at Delhi for her treatment and also because she was weak and unable to look after her children. However, during this period she was very much concerned about her children and was feeling her helplessness in not being able to look after them and be with them. She was not indifferent towards her family and was not deliberately neglecting them. However, during this period she was very much concerned about her children and was feeling her helplessness in not being able to look after them and be with them. She was not indifferent towards her family and was not deliberately neglecting them. Looking to her physical condition she may be unjustified in making a demand for living away from her in-laws but then this demand was made right after the marriage of the parties and from time to time it was pressed but it does not appear to have been made an issue for the break down of the marriage. Inspite of this demand the parties continued to lead a normal life for a number of years. The real trouble started because of the interference of the appellants mother. However it may be said that interference by the appellants mother cannot be said to be the role of the appellant herself so as to make it a cruelty on her part. We have seen above that on most of the occasions the appellants mother came to Jaipur at the invitation of the respondent. He wanted her help in looking after the wife and the child and some times for settling the discord between the husband and wife, there is sufficient material on record to show that the respondent had asked to his mother-in-law to come over to Jaipur. In such circumstances her coming to Jaipur cannot be taken to be a reason for bringing about a break down in the marriage. The fact that the appellant was living with her husband, just a couple of days prior to the presentation of the divorce petition without there being any show of discord between them, makes it difficult to accept that the conduct of the appellant was cruel towards the husband. In fact it was the respondent who while living with the appellant was forcing her to agree to divorce by mutual consent and this was not accepted by the appellant. It was because of her non-cooperation that she was sent to the parents at Delhi with his son Brijesh. It was even written down as to what ornaments she was taking with her. All this go to show that the relationship between parties were not unpleasant to the extent of bringing about a complete break down of the marriage. It was because of her non-cooperation that she was sent to the parents at Delhi with his son Brijesh. It was even written down as to what ornaments she was taking with her. All this go to show that the relationship between parties were not unpleasant to the extent of bringing about a complete break down of the marriage. It was the respondent who was making attempts to find out means of divorcing his wife and was doing so by imagining certain things such as creation of evidence by the appellant and her mother. Even if it was true that the appellants mother was getting letters written by the appellant in order to create evidence then the appellant herself informed the respondent about the same and it would only go to show that the appellant was sympathetic towards the respondent and did not want that he should be a victim of conspiracy. (21) On the basis of the evidence we are satisfied that the appellant by her conduct did not give any cause to the respondent to believe that his life was in danger or that he could not live with her without mental disturbance. The grounds which have been raised in the amended petition relate to matters which occurred subsequent to the presentation of the divorce petition. If any complaint was made to the respondents officers then the same would not become a ground for seeking divorce. According to the appellant the complaints to the officers became necessary when the respondent threatened the appellant and her attendants when they appeared before the Family Court in pursuance of the notice issued in divorce petition. In fact it was the respondent who was using all pressure tactics first by presenting divorce petition immediately then by affecting service of it on the appellant on the very next day and then trying to force her when she appeared before the Family Court. When once the matter is already before the Court then the subsequent act would not be relevant in finding out as to the relationship between the husband and the wife when they were living together. On the basis of the evidence we are unable to hold that the appellants conduct was such which could be said to be amount to cruelty towards the respondent. On the basis of the evidence we are unable to hold that the appellants conduct was such which could be said to be amount to cruelty towards the respondent. So many circumstances have come in the way of a smooth married life between the husband and wife but merely because the marriage has not been successful it cannot be said that the appellant treated the respondent with cruelty. In absence of proof of cruelty as required by section 13(1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, on this ground divorce cannot be granted. In this case we find that the ground for granting divorce does not exist and the degree of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur deserves to be set aside. (22) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur is set aside. The divorce petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The appellant shall get her costs of this court as well as of the trial court from the respondent.