JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J. 1. This is husband's appeal against the dismissal of his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. 2. Admittedly, the parties were married according to Hindu rites on 16.2.1976 and after the marriage they lived as husband and wife. Out of thewed-lock, eight issues were born to the parties five daughters and a son, where two sons could not survive. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that the treatment of the defendant- respondent was not pleasant towards him as well as his members of family. His father survived for 10 years after marriage, but the respondent did not give him proper respect. His mother was weak and short-sighted, she too was not treated properly by the respondent. The respondent did not take much interest in the domestic work i.e. cleaning the house and cooking etc. and it had to be done by his mother inspite of the fact that she was not well. Respondent quarrelled on petty matters, as result of which, there is no peace in the family. She used to beat all children. The respondent also did not care for the children as well. She did not give affection of mother to children. After marriage she mostly lived in her Maike at village Miyana. Respondent was forcing the appellant to live at village Miyana after leaving Shivpuri, which was opposed by him. She used to go to her parents house at village Miyana without intimating. When he asked her for not doing so, she threatened that she will burn herself or drown or commit suicide. Her father Laxmi Narayan Shivhare also threatened him to beat and to falsely implicant him. A year prior to the filing of the petition she left the children and went away, without intimating him, to her Jeeja, Bharosilal, at old Shivpuri and from there to Miyana. The treatment of the respondent amounted to cruelty bom physical and mental and as such, the petition was filed. 3. All the allegations of cruelty and improper treatment with the parents etc. have been categorically denied by the respondent. She alleged that she used to do all the work of the family. She brought up her children properly. She used to visit her parents occasionally at the time of Rakshbanchan etc. with the permission of the petitioner. 3. All the allegations of cruelty and improper treatment with the parents etc. have been categorically denied by the respondent. She alleged that she used to do all the work of the family. She brought up her children properly. She used to visit her parents occasionally at the time of Rakshbanchan etc. with the permission of the petitioner. She did not go to the house of her Jeeja, Bharosi Lal as alleged. The petitioner used to beat her often and used to say that she was not beautiful. She lived in the same house in a room where she was asked to live with her children. When written statement was submitted in the Court on 23.6.1995, the petitioner got annoyed and on 5.8.1995 in the absence of the respondent, another lock was put in her room. On that date she had come to the Court. When she returned, the petitioner turned her out. She went to lodge a report. She thereafter was living with her father. 4. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire material on record and hearing the arguments of parties concluded that the case of cruelty was not established. The petition was, therefore, dismissed hence this appeal. 5. The plaintiff had come to the Court for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The cruelty alleged by him is that the respondent did not prepare food, did not do domestic work etc. as mentioned above. The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined by any statute. It has been taken that if the conduct of the other side is of such a nature as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental) or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger, it may amount to cruelty. In this way, the conception of cruelty comprises of two elements, i.e. the ill-treatment and the resultant danger. It is useful to mention here that the apprehension contemplated under this legal conception is to the effect that further exploitation will be harmful and injurious to the minds. The cruel treatment is a question of fact as well as law and has to be determined by the Court. It is necessary to consider the physical and mental condition of the parties, standard of culture in life. The cruel treatment is a question of fact as well as law and has to be determined by the Court. It is necessary to consider the physical and mental condition of the parties, standard of culture in life. The cruelty has to be enquired from the entire matrimonial relations of the parties and in their daily life, brought on record. On the basis of this principle, it has to be seen as to how far the petitioner has been able to make out a case within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. The plaintiff-petitioner in his statement has deposed that after the marriage, his family consist of his parents and sister. She is married and lives at her sasural at old Shivpuri. The treatment of Shobha with his parents was not proper. She did not cook food for his father and quarrelled. She misbehaved with his mother and once slapped her and caught hold of her hair. Her treatment is also not good with the petitioner. She did not cook meal at proper time and used to quarrel. The domestic work was got done by her from her children. Her treatment towards children too was not good. She used to beat them. She did not care of their meal. They could not get mother's affection. She was under the influence of her parents. She used to say that he should live at her village Miyana and in case here did not go, she will die and take poison and will also give poison to him. She threatened to kill him and to put fire to herself or jump in a well along with child ren. His statement also shows that inspite of that he had produced eight children. He categorically admitted that from the union with Shobha Devi, he produced eight children. Out of that two daughters had died. The children were born at an interval of two years. The youngest son was four year of age when his statement was recorded on 11.4.1996. That means that the youngest must be of the year 1992. The petitioners was filed in the month of December, 1993, that is one year after the birth of the last child. Under these circumstances, it is wholly impossible to believe that the treatment of the respondent was cruel to him. That means that the youngest must be of the year 1992. The petitioners was filed in the month of December, 1993, that is one year after the birth of the last child. Under these circumstances, it is wholly impossible to believe that the treatment of the respondent was cruel to him. Had it been so, the parties could not have cohabited and produced so many children at regular intervals. No complaint was made to any authority or to anybody with respect to the alleged threat. The mother was alive and she has not been produced to prove that the treatment of the respondent was improper with her as well as the family and the petitioner. He has not given any details about the alleged threat. No independent person has been produced. Had it been a fact that there had been a quarrel as cited by him, neighbours could have been produced to corroborate his statement. The petitioner has examined his two daughters. PW2 Kumari Radhika Shivhare and PW3 Kumari Prerna Shivhare in support of his claim. If we go to the statements of both the witnesses, it transpires that both are under the infuence of the petitioner. No doubt they have stated that the treatment of respondent was not proper towards the petitioner as well as family. 7. PW2 Kumari Radhika Shivhare stated that her mother used to beat the children when they did not do work or create nuisance. She stated in her statement: "Meree ma ham baihon ki marpeet tab kartee thee jab ham kam nahin karpate the, ya udham karte the" She admitted that her mother was cleaning the house. Her grand mother was too cleaning it. PW3 Prerna Shivhare also stated that her mother can cook. She deposed that she saw her mother at her house preparing the meal. But she cooks seldomly. She stated that her mother cooked and cleaned the house. She gave a peculiar statement, which has not been alleged in the petition nor stated by the petitioner himself. She deposed that her mother used to say that she will commit suicide. She had taken poison several times and she also poured kerosene upon herself in order to commit suicide and implicate his father. This is rather surprising that she has gone much ahead of the petitioner. She deposed that her mother used to say that she will commit suicide. She had taken poison several times and she also poured kerosene upon herself in order to commit suicide and implicate his father. This is rather surprising that she has gone much ahead of the petitioner. She specifically stated that her father wanted to leave her mother as he was sick of her. She also stated that as her father wanted to leave her mother, he had turned her out from her house. PW2 stated that she was afraid of her father. It is common knowledge that in every family some sort of quarrel takes place. Children are also beaten up if they do not work or create nuisance. It does not mean that such happening amounts to cruelty so as to create an impression upon the mind of one spouse that it will not be safe to live with other. The evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner himself had turned out the respondent. The respondent, Smt. Shobha in her statement deposed that she used to do all the work. She has denied all the allegations and further stated that she lived in a room in the same house. The lock of the room was broken on 15.8.1995 when she had gone to Court. The totality of the facts brought on record clearly go to show that the parties lived together and produced children. The last child was born one year prior to the filing of the petition. It cannot, therefore, be taken by any stretch of imagination that there was any cruel treatment of the respondent with the petitioner within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 so as to constitute a ground for grant of divorce. The learned Trial Court, which has had the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, has discarded the petitioner's story. I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings. 8. Before parting with the case, I may mention that there is an application of the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for allowing maintenance allowance @Rs. 500/- p.m. and to give expenditure of the present appeal. It has been alleged that during the pendency of the suit, an amount of Rs. 350/- was being paid per month by the plaintiff, but it was not paid thereafter. 500/- p.m. and to give expenditure of the present appeal. It has been alleged that during the pendency of the suit, an amount of Rs. 350/- was being paid per month by the plaintiff, but it was not paid thereafter. This amount is not sufficient for maintenance and deserves to be enhanced. There is however, no merit in the petition to show as to what should be the criteria of enhancing this amount. Under thesecircumstances,itcannotbe said thatany case of enhancement is made out. Mere assertion that Rs. 350/- p.m. which was allowed earlier is not sufficient. It cannot be said to be a ground for enhancement, I, therefore, conclude that the appellant is liable to pay maintenance @ Rs. 350/- p.m., which was allowed earlier till further order of any competent Court and this amount, if not paid, shall be recovered from the appellant also. I may add here that it will be open to the defendant-respondent to seek enhancement from the competent Court in accordance with law. 9. As has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Lawyer's fee is fixed at Rs. 500/- under the circumstances of the case.