JUDGMENT 1. Shri B.I. Mehta submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in not accepting the evidence of the petitioner which has been totally unchallenged. He further Pointed-out that the respondent even did not bother to challenge the averments made by the appellant in the matrimonial petition. He submitted that the reasons given by the trial Judge for dismissing the petition of the appellant praying for decree of divorce are not consistent with the evidence on record and they are erroneous. He further submitted that on account of wrong approach, the learned judge landed in the error of dismissing the petition of the appellant forgetting divorce against the respondent -- Shobhana. For substantiating his contention Shri Mehta placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 SCC Page 337 (V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.). By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra) he submitted that present one is a case of broken marriage and therefore, the spouses cannot be expected to reside together in a matrimonial wedlock. In support of his submissions, Shri Mehta produced the certified copy of the matrimonial petition filed by the respondent Dr. P.K. Shobhana in Coimbatore family Court in which she prayed for decree of divorce against the present appellant dissolving their marriage. By pointing-out this; he submitted that the marriage is totally broken and therefore the only thing which can be done would be passing a decree for divorce dissolving their marriage. 2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the matrimonial disharmony between the spouses. Both, the appellant and the respondent were married on 15.2.94 at Bhilai and thereafter they resided at Ujjain as husband and wife. It has been alleged by the appellant in the matrimonial petition that the wife Shobhna did not behave with him properly and by her cruel behaviour, he got frustrated, which was unbearable. Both, the appellant and the respondent were married on 15.2.94 at Bhilai and thereafter they resided at Ujjain as husband and wife. It has been alleged by the appellant in the matrimonial petition that the wife Shobhna did not behave with him properly and by her cruel behaviour, he got frustrated, which was unbearable. He has quoted one instance in which respondent Shobhana attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body but fortunately she could not do anything on account of the presence of guards of Indorama Synthetics public Ltd. He also pointed-out that respondent Shobhana gave cruel treatment to his parents also which resulted in the complaint with the police lodged by his father by quoting number of instances and the way in which respondent behaved cruelly with him, appellant prayed that it was not possible for him and the respondent Dr. Shobhana, to cohabit as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. Thus, he prayed for decree of divorce in his favour and against the respondent Shobhana by preferring matrimonial petition in the District Court, Ujjain. Learned Additional District Judge who tried the said matrimonial petition after recording the evidence of appellant Naresh Purohit concluded that he did not prove that the respondent behaved with him in such a cruel way which was sufficient enough to pass the decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage. 3. In the matrimonial petition the appellant has reiterated his averments describing the cruelty offered to him by the respondent. The said petition has been verified by him. Therefore, the averments made in the said petition will have to be referred to as the evidence in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for convenience). Summons were issued by the trial Court to respondent Shobhana. She did not appear in the Court and did not submit her written statement for the purpose of contradicting his allegations made against her by appellant Naresh Purohit. Therefore, this attitude of respondent will have to be given due weightage for the purpose of deciding whether appellant had proved his case for the purpose of getting the decree of divorce dissolving the marriage with Shobhana -- the respondent. In his evidence appellant has stated that after 23.8.95 respondent insulated his parents as his father did not pay her a sum of Rs. In his evidence appellant has stated that after 23.8.95 respondent insulated his parents as his father did not pay her a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for starting a clinic at Ujjain. He further submitted that in the month of May, 95 when he was ailing by getting infected by Hapetitis, respondent did not behave properly with him. Such behaviour was again repeated when he again fell ill by catching juandice in the month of Nov. 95. Learned trial Judge has not given due importance to this aspect of the matter. Had the wife of the appellant been someone else other than the persons of medical field petitioner would not have expected this thing. Perhaps this aspect might not have acquired importance. But she happens to be a woman from medical field and was holding good qualification, when that was so, it was totally improper for her that she did not give proper attention to his ailment. Lack of attentiveness in that context at that time would be something which would be coming in the gammut of cruelty. Furthermore, the appellant has quoted an instance in statement on oath that respondent Shobhana attempted to pour kerosene on her body and set her to fire. The learned trial Judge also did not give due importance to this aspect of the matter. Had the guards not intervened by their presence, respondent might have committed suicide and that might have caught the appellant in other legal complications and that too in the nature of prosecution. Therefore, the attempt on the part of wife to go for committing suicide will have to be seen in proper perspective. Apart from this, it is the evidence of appellant Naresh Purohit that when respondent Shobhana was residing with him as wife, she used to quarrel constantly. Constant quarrels also assume "cruelty". 4. Cruelty is a relative term. Cruelty which is necessary for passing the decree of divorce has to be gathered from the evidence on record. The instances have to be clubbed together and reasonable inference has to be drawn whether the behaviour of the spouse comes under the term ''cruelty" or not. From the evidence on record one can infer safely that respondent was constantly quarreling with the appellant and that made their lives difficult. Such behaviour on the part of the respondent Shobhana made themselves to separate. From the evidence on record one can infer safely that respondent was constantly quarreling with the appellant and that made their lives difficult. Such behaviour on the part of the respondent Shobhana made themselves to separate. In fact this has happened and Shobhana abandoned the matrimonial home and went to coimbatore. It is pertinent to note that in the matrimonial petition which she submitted in the family Court at coimbatore she has described her departure as "escape". This shows that spouses have gone to such a distance from which coming back is totally impossible. This aspect has to be given due consideration at the time of coming to conclusion whether the decree of divocre by dissolving their marriage should be passed or whether the Court should refuse to pass it. In the matter of Bhagat v. Bhagat Supreme Court has pointed-out the case of such spouses which had gone to such a stage in which it was not proper to unite them together and to ask them to live their matrimonial life. Mental cruelty which has been mentioned in Section 13(1) (ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. Mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably expected to live together. It is not expected that in all cases the party praying for divorce should prove the mental cruelty by indicating the injury caused to the health. While coming to conclusion in respect of such cruelty as contemplated under Section 13(1) (ia) regards must be had to the social status, education level of the parties and the society in which they live. So also it is necessary to see whether the parties are expected to live together and continue their matrimonial life. In the present case as it appears from the record, the appellant is a person occupying good job in a public limited company, respondent happens to be a medical practitioner. As the record shows they reside in an educated and sophisticated society. In such society and in such an atmosphere, such quarrels, such attempts to commit suicide, such complaints in the police station are not indicating a happy course of life. As the record shows they reside in an educated and sophisticated society. In such society and in such an atmosphere, such quarrels, such attempts to commit suicide, such complaints in the police station are not indicating a happy course of life. The matrimonial petition filed by the respondent in Coimbatore family Court itself shows that the respondent is totally bent upon to get the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. In the said matrimonial petition she has used the word "escape". Use of that word means that she was totally fed up with the matrimonial home and therefore she had to leave Ujjain and she had to stay somewhere else for the purpose of carrying on her medical profession which she did by staying at Coimbatore. Therefore taking into consideration this aspect of the matter it is not possible that these two spouses would live together as husband and wife and would carryon their remaining matrimonial life happily and peacefully. If that is so, there is no propriety in asking them to be locked in the wedlock and to stay together under one matrimonial roof. It would be indirectly cruelty to both. The trial Court has committed an error in not properly giving due attention to this aspect of the matter and not granting the decree of divorce dissolving their marriage. Therefore the judgment and decree which has been passed by the trial Court will have to be set-aside in view of the discussion above by allowing this appeal. Thus, the appeal stands allowed. Marriage between appellant and the respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. Shri Mehta submitted that their daughter Paridhi is staying with the respondent presently. She should be with respondent till the competent Court passes appropriate order in that context. For maintenance of daughter Paridhi appellant should send Rs. 2000/- per month to Dr. Shobhana, the respondent which should be sent by money order or the bank draft by 15th of every month. Thus, the appeal stands disposed of.