JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal against dismissal of his petition Under Section 13(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Briefly narrated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the parties were married on 18.11.1981, according to Hindu rites at village Teton, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind. After the marriage the respondent went to the appellant's house and lived there for about three days. She them went to her parental home according to the custom. After the traditional "Vidai" in the month of May, 1992, she again went to her matrimonial house. She did not perform her duties of a wife. She used to throw utensils. She did not cook food for the plaintiff but used to pour cereals and chillies in Chulha. She made it impossible for the plaintiff to sit and eat food. She did not take bath daily. She went to her parent's house without telling him. In the month of March, 1983 she went to her father for "Holi. She was brought on 16.6.93 by the plaintiff and this time she made his life miserable. Again on 22.6.83 she left his house and on search it transpired that she had gone to her parent's house. She did not return for about one year. A Panchayat took place on 17.6.84. On the date of Panchayat she voluntarily came to her matrimonial house and stayed there for three days. During this period she acted with extreme cruelty. In the night of 20th June, 1984 she agains left her matrimonial house and stayed at her father's house till 10.11.1985. Her father thereafter visited plaintiff's house in 1985 and assured that she will not go again and will not behave with cruelty. On this assurance she was again brought back but she again committed cruelty with the plaintiff unnecessary and ultimately threatened him of committing suicide and self immolation. After three days she again went on 14.11.1985 and did not return thereafter. He alleged that the defendant did not discharge her duties of a wife and treated him with cruelty. Hence the decree for divorce was sought. All the allegations except the factum of marriage have been denied by the defendant. She alleged that the facts alleged by the plaintiff were concocted and false. She was a simple lady and lived at plaintiff's house as his wife. She used to do domestic work. Hence the decree for divorce was sought. All the allegations except the factum of marriage have been denied by the defendant. She alleged that the facts alleged by the plaintiff were concocted and false. She was a simple lady and lived at plaintiff's house as his wife. She used to do domestic work. As soon as he took admission in B.Sc. his parents started ill-treating her. The facts were that she lived at the plaintiff's house and his parents ill-treated her. In the night of 22.6.1983 she was turned out of the house and remained there till 9.00 p.m. when the neighbours left her at her Bua's House. A report was lodged by her Phupha, Somdutt Shukla In this regard on the next date. When her parents got information they came to Gwalior. When complaint was made to the parents and relations of the petitioner they were given illtreatment and were abused. The allegations of the fact that Panchayat had taken place at the house of Suresh Sharma on 17.6.1984 has been admitted in para 5 of the written statement but the assertion is that the plaintiff and his relations had assured her father that they will keep their Bahu in their house and will not ill-treat her. In the Panchayat her father was present and he left her on the assurance of the Panchas at plaintiff's house. Only relations of the plaintiff were present in the Panchayat. He never committed any cruelty. Rather she herself was beaten on 20.6.1988 by the plaintiff's parents and was turned out: She wanted to live with the plaintiff and was ready and willing to live with him and was entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights. She therefore prayed a relief of restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The learned Court below formulated the issues that arose from the pleading of the parties, took the evidence adduced by them and after hearing and considering the entire material dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that several allegations amounting to cruelty have been made by the petitioner in his petition, as well as in his statement which have been denied by the defendant in the written statement but there is a specific allegation in para 5 of the petition, to the effect that the defendant/respondent threatened that she will burn herself and commit suicide. It amounts to mental and physical cruelty. This allegation has neither been denied in the written statement nor in the statement of the defendant. Hence it has to be accepted. Once it is accepted that there was a threat from the defendant that she will burn herself and commit suicide it goes to show that it is covered within the meaning of cruelty and hence the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce. On this ground I may mention here that besides arguing on this point, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not argued on any other averments made in the plaint relating to cruelty. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the averments made in the petition did not constitute cruelty so as to enable the plaintiff to obtain a decree of divorce. The allegation that the defendant had given threat to burn herself and commit suicide has been denied in asmuchas all the averments made in para 5 of the plaint have been denied. Similarly in her statement as well the defendant denied the allegations made by the palintiff. The palintiff has miserably failed to prove cruelty alleged by him. The Court below has rightly dismissed the petition. 4. I have already mentioned above that the learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the dismissal of the petition only one ground and hence the. other grounds constituting cruelty alleged by the plaintiff in the petition need not be gone into. However, I deem it proper to make a reference of the averments made in the petition with respect to the cruelty because those averments have not been found to be proved by the learned Court below and they will help the Court in assessing at the truth or falsity of the allegations regarding the alleged threat mentioned above on which the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance. Before entering into the factual part of the case, it appears to me necessary to mention here as to what amounts to cruelty. The word "Cruelty" has not been defined anywhere in the Hindu Marriage Act. It was considered in great detail in 1983 Allahabad, 225 Suresh Kumar Gulati v. Smt. Sutnan Gulati, The meaning of the word "Cruelty" has been given in Halsebury's Law of England IIIrd Addition, Volume-12, page 269 Subset-5. The word "Cruelty" has not been defined anywhere in the Hindu Marriage Act. It was considered in great detail in 1983 Allahabad, 225 Suresh Kumar Gulati v. Smt. Sutnan Gulati, The meaning of the word "Cruelty" has been given in Halsebury's Law of England IIIrd Addition, Volume-12, page 269 Subset-5. According to the meaning given in this book the word "Cruelty" is generally described as conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mentally) so as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. The cruelty may be physical or mental. The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the whole matrimonial relations must be considered when the cruelty consist not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints acquisition or taunts. In the same book it has been observed that in determining what constitutes cruelty, regard must be has to the circumstances of each particular case keeping always in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties and their character and social status. 5. In the above-mentioned background, we have to find out from the material on record as to how far the appellant has been able to establish cruelty to enable him to a decree of divorce. The only assertion on which emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as said above, is that the defendant threatened that she will immolate herself and commit suicide stands admitted inasmuch as it has not been denied either in the written statement or in the statement on oath. On this basis, the contention is that the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce. A perusal of para 3 of the plaint shows that several averments have been made in this paragraph which can hardly be said to be included within the definition of cruelty. The averments are to the effect that the defendant did not perform her duty of a wife and whenever he used to sit to take meals she started throwing utensils and she throwing cereals in the Chulha. She did not take bath. She used to throw water. In para 5, the allegations are that the defendant started quarrelling and making nuisance. The specific allegation made is that she gave a threat that she will burn herself and commit suicide. She did not take bath. She used to throw water. In para 5, the allegations are that the defendant started quarrelling and making nuisance. The specific allegation made is that she gave a threat that she will burn herself and commit suicide. Due to it he was suffering mental and physical agony. If we pursue paras 3 and 5 of the written statement, all the allegations made in paras 3 and 5 have been specifically and categorically denied. The averments made in para 5 too have been denied in detail. Rather it has been alleged that the petitioner himself started beating her. It is, however, correct that the aforesaid averment that she threatened to burn herself and commit suicide has not been specifically denied. A perusal of the statement of the plaintiff Krishnarao shows that in para 4 he stated that after the defendant went to his house on 11.11.85 she started quarrelling, creating noise and threatening to commit suicide. It is significant to mention that in his statement he has not stated that the defendant threatened to burn herself as mentioned in para 5 of the petition. If we pursue the cross examination we find that a specific question was put to him as to what cruelty was committed by the defendant upon him and he narrated it categorically in the following words : "Pratiprarthini ka mere prati kasht dayak vyavhar yah hai ki use khana banana nahin aata... Pratiprarthi ke khana banane mai meri mataji aur bahne madad karti thi... Meri Maa ne kabhi koi shikayat nahin kee. Main din nahin bata sakta ki knose din pratiprarthi ne chulhe main mirchi aur namak data tha. Meri pratiparthi yah irsha thi ke main khana nahin banau isliya wah chulhe main namak mirchi dalti thi." Besides it he did not say about averments made in examination-in-chief with respect to threatening and committing suicide or burning herself. It, therefore, suggests that he has not been himself serious about these avements. He has not stated that the defendant is insane. Rather he deposed "Mujhe Nain Malum Ki Partiprarthi Pagal Hai Ya Hain.. Maiane Pratiprarthini Ko Doctor Ko Dikhane Ke Koi Jarurat Nahin Samjhi." The defendant, on the other hand, deposed in her statement that after the marriage she went to her Sasural. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to beat her. They turned her out. So long she remained there she cooked meals. Maiane Pratiprarthini Ko Doctor Ko Dikhane Ke Koi Jarurat Nahin Samjhi." The defendant, on the other hand, deposed in her statement that after the marriage she went to her Sasural. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to beat her. They turned her out. So long she remained there she cooked meals. She was beaten by Fukni and Belan. She specifically denied the allegation that whenever she cooked food she used to throw cereals in the Chulha. She did not take bath. Whenever Krishnarao used to sit for meals, she used to throw utensils. Suggestions were thrown to her in this regard which have been denied. No suggestion was given to her with respect to aforementioned allegation that she had given threat to immolate herself and commit suicide. Thus, inspite of the fact that there is no specific denial in the written statement with respect to this allegation, the fact that the petitioner did not narrate it in the cruelty alleged by him in his cross-examination and no suggestion in this regard was given to the defendant when she was in witness box goes to suggest that there was no truth in this averment. Even it is taken for the sake of argument that the defendant gave any such threat on a solitary occasion, it cannot by itself be said to be sufficient for grant of a decree for divorce. There is nothing in the statement of the plaintiff to show that this threat was such which caused danger to his life or limb or gave reasonable apprehension of such danger. There must be specific and turstworthy material on record to show that there was an impact on the mind of the petitioner out of the aforesaid stray act even if it was there. If we pursue the conduct of the parties, we find that there is sufficient material to show that the defendant wanted to live with the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner himself did not want to keep her. The suggestion thrown to the petitioner in his cross-examination is that he did not want to keep her because he has passed M.Sc. and is an educated person, whereas the defendant is illiterate. The fact that the petitioner is M.Sc. and the defendant is illiterate has been admitted by the petitioner himself. In para 8 he deposed that it was correct that the respondent was illiterate. and is an educated person, whereas the defendant is illiterate. The fact that the petitioner is M.Sc. and the defendant is illiterate has been admitted by the petitioner himself. In para 8 he deposed that it was correct that the respondent was illiterate. In para 6 he stated that he was reading in B.Sc. in 1981 and passed in 1985. He appeared in M.Sc. in 1986. He categorically stated in para 9 that he was not prepared to keep the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent deposed that she did not want to divorce. She wanted to live with her husband. An attempt was made in this Court for reconciliation and here also the petitioner Kirshnarao deposed that he was not prepared to live with the respondent whereas Bhuribai deposed that she wanted to live with the appellant. The entire conduct and material on record, therefore, goes to suggest that it is a fact that the petitioner is an educated person having passed M.Sc. whereas the respondent is illiterate. The petitioner does not want to keep the respondent and the respondent inspite of the fact that she asserted that she was being beaten is prepared to live with the appellant. In this context the averment that the respondent threatened to immolate herself cannot be held even if accepted to be sufficient to hold that she treated the petitioner with cruelty. It cannot be held to be covered within the definition of cruelty in view of what has been said above. 6. Before parting with I may also mention that there is on record Ex. P. 1 which, is Panchanama. This document purports to have been signed by Ratiram, father of the respondent. Evidence has been adduced by the petitioner that a Panchanama had taken place and the fact that the Panchnama had taken place is not in dispute. The dispute is as to what had happened in the Panchayat. On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that the respondent's father had admitted that she was being sent to Sasural by him out of their Will and in case in future the girl ran away or committed suicide, he will be responsible. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that this was not written by the respondent. Even her father was not told about the contents of the document and his signatures were obtained. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that this was not written by the respondent. Even her father was not told about the contents of the document and his signatures were obtained. The persons who took part in this Panchayat were all relations of the petitioner and this fact has been admitted by the petitioner himself. I have carefully perused this document and the entire material and evidence adduced by the parties on record. After giving my anxious consideration to the entire material, I am of the view that it does not help the petitioner in any manner. Firstly, the respondent is not a signatory to it and admittedly she was not present in the Panchayat. She cannot, therefore, be fastened with any averment made in this document. The signatory Ratiram too has denied his knowledge about the contents of the document and stated that he was made to sign over it as he was assured that he will bring the girl. He specifically stated that the document was not read over to him. He was confronted in this regard with the averments made in the written statement but it has no value because he is not a signatory to written statement. Thus, to my mind, this document is of no value and cannot help the petitioner. 7. In view of what has been said above, I conclude that the palintiff- appellant has not been able to prove that he was treated with cruelty as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Court below was, therefore, perfectly justified in dismissing the suit. The appeal has thus no merits and is dismissed with costs.