JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. :- This appeal at the instance of appellant - wife is against the judgment dated 1.2.1999 passed by the District judge Una. whereby her marriage with the respondent - husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that she treated him with cruelty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.8.1997 the husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place on 22.1.1995 and one son was born out of the wedlock on 21.9.1996. The allegations of cruelty as made in the petition are :- "...The behavior of the respondent is such that she gets irritated and creates problem by making a mountain out of the mole and makes the entire atmosphere of the family such drastic so as to make it impossible to reside therein. She creates fuss over the petty matters and quarrels with the petitioner and other member of the family for nothing, thus causing mental cruelty to the petitioner. That the responded used to leave the company of the petitioner without his consent or permission and reside at her parents house for a number of has together adding further cruelty to the petitioner. That apart from it the respondent has ceased to have the marital relation with the petitioner for a period bf more than 11/4 years which also amounts to the causing of mental and physical cruelty to the petitioner." 3. On the above allegations the husband concluded in para 8 that due to behavior and act and conduct of the respondent the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broke and there is no possibility of reunion and continuation of the marriage. 4. In her written statement dated 3.10.1997 the wife took number of preliminary objections, inter alia, that the husband is stopped from filing the petition by his act and conduct, he has no legally eaforceable cause of action and he has not approached the Court with clean hands and had intentionally and wilfully concealed the material facts, as such, he is not entitled to the relief sought for by him. On merits, she has denied the allegations of misbaviour and misconduct as false, frivolous and baseless. On merits, she has denied the allegations of misbaviour and misconduct as false, frivolous and baseless. According to her these allegations are vague and call for better particulars of the acts of misbehavic and misconduct. She has further stated that as per the custom, she lived in the house of her parents for the purpose of delivery, where she gave birth to a son on 21.9.1996 but neither the husband nor any member of his family visited her parents house to inquire about her welfare and that of her son despite her father personally visiting the house of the husband and requesting them in this regard. In these facts and circumstances a KHANGI Panchayat was held at the instance of the father of the wife in the month of March. 1997 in the house of Shr O.P. Rattan, the then MLA. which was attended by Vishwa Nath. Up-Pradhan and near relations of the parties. In the meeting the husband promised to take the wife along with there son to his house in Navratras in the month of April. Since the husband did not keep up his promise, second KHANGI Panchayat was held on 31.5.1997 and the husband was successfully persuaded to take his wife and son to his village Bhatoli. The brother and sister-in-law of the wife and S/Shri Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj. Surinder Kumar Kaushal and Smt. Kanta Devi also accompanied them to the house of the husband on 15.6.1997 but after about a month on 21.7.1997 at 1.00 AM she was again turned out of the matrimonial home along with her son and was threatened with to death if she dared to come back or held any KHANGI Panchayat. It is further added that the wife was subjected to harassment, taunting and insult by the husband and members of his family. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the following sues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP. 2. Relief. 6. When the case was at the stage of recording the evidence on behalf of the wife, she moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement which was allowed as it was not opposed by the husband. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP. 2. Relief. 6. When the case was at the stage of recording the evidence on behalf of the wife, she moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement which was allowed as it was not opposed by the husband. By way of amendment the wife made the following additions in para 8 of her written statement:- "Somuch so the petitioner, his brother Ramesh Chand and sister in law Smt. Raksha Devi turned out the respondent from her matrimonial house at Shahpur Kand and asked the respondent to bring Rs.50.000/- from her father if she has to live in the matrimonial house at Shahpur Kand otherwise the respondent would be done to death. The whole episode was disclosed by the respondent to her parents and the father of the respondent some how managed to arrange Rs. 15.000/- who gave the same to the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent was again maltreated on the ground that she has not brought the dowry sufficient to there expectation and the petitioner and his family has been lowered in the society at large. This matter was reported to the police. Photostat copy of the report is attached." 7. After recording the evidence on behalf of the wife the arguments were heard and the petition was allowed. On the assessment of the evidence on record the District Judge has disbelieved the allegations of the wife and dubbed them as concocted and fabricated, made to implicate the husband in a false case of dowry demand and to cause worn and harassment to him which was held an additional ground to part company with the wife. The District Judge has further held that the wife has not deposed in respect of demand of Rs.50,000/- and payment of Rs. 15,000/-by her father, who has also not come forward to corroborate her whereas in fact both the wife and her father have appeared as RW- 1 and RW-4 and reiterated these allegations. The District Judge has further disbelieved the wife that she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 21.9.1997 on the ground that she failed to give any reason for it, though, in her evidence she has given detailed account how and wiry she was shunted out of her matrimonial home on 21.9.1997 and on earlier occassions. The District Judge has further disbelieved the wife that she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 21.9.1997 on the ground that she failed to give any reason for it, though, in her evidence she has given detailed account how and wiry she was shunted out of her matrimonial home on 21.9.1997 and on earlier occassions. The judgment of District Judge is one sided and instead of holding that cruelty is not made out from the pleadings and evidence of the husband and dismissing the petition, he has relied upon the defence of the wife to hold that her behaviour and conduct amount to cruelty and granted decree of divorce. These findings have been assailed by the wife in this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. Learned counsel for the wife has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that it is based on wrong appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record. According to learned counsel, the husband has miserably failed to prove the mis-behaviour and misconduct of the wife amounting to cruelty to allow his petition for divorce and the District Judge, by using the allegations of the wife in respect of demand of down for which she had lodged complain Ex.DA in the police and the harassment meted out to her by beating and throwing her out of the matrimonial home, granted the divorce by giving premium to his misbehaviour and misconduct instead of penalizing him. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the husband has supported the impugned judgment. 11. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties we would like to refer to the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective case. The husband has examined himself as PW-1 and produced Jagan Nat and Roshan Lal. PW-2 and PW-3. On the other hand, the wife and her father appeared as RW-1 who was a member of KHANGI Panchayat and one Amar Nath. RW-3. 12. In his statement the husband has reiterated his allegations made in the petition and added that his wife used to quarrel with him and with his brother and sister in-law on petty matters as a result of which his life had become hell. He has not given any specific instance constituting cruelty. RW-3. 12. In his statement the husband has reiterated his allegations made in the petition and added that his wife used to quarrel with him and with his brother and sister in-law on petty matters as a result of which his life had become hell. He has not given any specific instance constituting cruelty. He has also referred to two KHANGI Panchayat and stated that as a result of deliberations of second KHANGI Panchayat he took the wife to his village Bharolian and left her with his mother but after about 15 days she all of a sudden went to her parents house without any rhyme or reason. According to him. the misbehaviour and misconduct of the wife was causing so much physical and mental torture that it has become impossible for him to live with her. In this cross- examination he has admitted that his father died on 24.1.1995 i.e. two days after the marriage between the parties. He has further admitted that confectionery is his family profession but denied that they are running a shop in his ancestral building and living separately. According to him. the shop and the house belong to his brother with whom he was working and living. He has also admitted that he did not visit the house of the parents of the wife after the birth of their son. He has denied that in the first KHANGI Panchayat he had agreed to take the wife and his son to his house during Navratras but has admitted that as a result of second KHANGI Panchayat he took them to his house and Krishan Lal. his wife, Vijay Kumar Bharwaj. Surinder Kumar Kaushal and Smt. Kanta accompanied them. He has denied the allegations of demand of Rs.50.000/- as dowry and also that he and his family members were teasing her for not bringing sufficient dowry. He has further denied the suggestions that his brother tried to administer poison to the wife and he had also tortured her in all respects. 13. Jagan Nath, PW-2 who claims himself to be the neighbor of the husband in the village, has stated that the wife lived with her mother-in-law for some time and her behaviour was not good and on one pretext or the other she used to quarrel. According to him. 13. Jagan Nath, PW-2 who claims himself to be the neighbor of the husband in the village, has stated that the wife lived with her mother-in-law for some time and her behaviour was not good and on one pretext or the other she used to quarrel. According to him. the misbehaviour and misconduct of the wife continued during her stay with the husband at Shahpur Kand. This witness goes to state that the wife was in the habit of leaving her matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. According to him as a result of both KHANGI Panchayat the wife went along with her husband to his house but did not stay there. According to him. the parties are living separately for the last one and half year and it was not possible for them to live together. This witness could not withstand the cross-examination in which he has admitted that he had not visited Shahpur Kand after the marriage of the parties as such, he was not able to tell during which period they had lived there as well as in the village. He has admitted that his business was at Sundernagar and the husband is his nephew. He has admitted that the wife had filed a complaint against the husband in Police Station. Gurdaspur but. has denied that the husband had demanded Rs.50.000/- as dowry and the husband and the members of his family used to condemn her on the ground that her father-in-law had died as soon as she stepped into their house. 14. The statement of Roshan Lal. PW-3. who is a resident of» village Bharolian. is only hear say as he has admitted that he had only i heard about the alleged misbehaviour and misconduct of the wife as a result of which they could not and are not able to live as husband and wife. In his cross-examination he has admitted that no member of the family of the husband is living permanently in village Bharolian. He was not able to tell the period when the wife had gone to her parents house leaving her matrimonial home as it was not told to him by the villagers. In his cross-examination he has admitted that no member of the family of the husband is living permanently in village Bharolian. He was not able to tell the period when the wife had gone to her parents house leaving her matrimonial home as it was not told to him by the villagers. Though, he has admitted that in the KHANGI Panchayat held in the house of Shri O.P. Rattan the husband had accepted all the conditions of the wife and agreed to take her to his house, but denied that the husband had also apologized for his conduct. 15. The wife in her deposition has reiterated the allegations made in her reply by stating that in the beginning for about one month the behaviour of the husband was all right but thereafter he and members of his family started maltreating her for not bringing enough dowry and once they had shunted her out of the house she went to the quarter of her father which was at a short distance and narrated to him her woes but on his persuasion she had come back. She has further stated that her father gave a piece of advice to her husband not to maltreat her but with no results and instead he asked for Rs.50,000/-. As per the wife, wen her husband and his elder brother and sister-in-law started giving her beating for not fulfilling the demand of Rs.50.000/- her father gave an amount of Rs. 15.000/- in November. 1995 in the presence of uncle Sham Lal. In June. 1996 she was left in the house of her parents for the purpose of delivery where she gave birth to a son on 21.9.1996 and neither the husband nor any member of his family came to bless him. She has also given the accounts of KHANGI Panchayat held in March. 1997 and May. 1997 and has stated that as per the agreement in second KHANGI Panchayat she was taken by the husband to his house on 15.6.1997 and her brother sister-in-law accompanied them to his quarter at Thein Dam where he was running a sweet meat shop. After a few days her husband again started maltreating her on the ground that she had not brought anything with her and ultimately threw her out of his house on 71.9.1997 and uncle Sham Lai brought her to her parents house. After a few days her husband again started maltreating her on the ground that she had not brought anything with her and ultimately threw her out of his house on 71.9.1997 and uncle Sham Lai brought her to her parents house. She has placed on record her complaint Ex.DA which she had lodged with the Superintendent of Police. Gurdaspur. In her cross-examination she has reiterated that the husband is not working with his brother and the sweet meat shop belongs to him. She has stated that the husband is not working with his brother and the sweet meat shop belongs to him. She has stated that the quaver of her father was at a short distance from the shop of her husband at Thein Dam where uncle Sham Lal was running a restaurant opposite to the shop of her husband and witness Amar Nath was running his REHRI. She has further deposed that in KHANGI Panchayat she did make a mention of the factum of demand of dowry. She has denied that after the first KHANGI Panchayat in March. 1997 she accompanied her husband but came back on the next day and also that she had made the life of her husband hell. She has also denied the suggestion that in December 1995 she refused to cohabit with her husband, and also live with him but added voluntarily that due to beatings and maltreatment to her by her husband she was not going to his house. According to her. since July, 1997 they were not having physical contact as husband and wife. She has denied as having filed false complaint against her husband in the police, as a result of which he was called in the Police Station number of times for about one month when she used to be also present. However, no case was registered on the basis of said complaint. 16. Vishwa Nath. RW-2. Up-Pradhan. Gram Panchayat, Bhatoli. She has denied as having filed false complaint against her husband in the police, as a result of which he was called in the Police Station number of times for about one month when she used to be also present. However, no case was registered on the basis of said complaint. 16. Vishwa Nath. RW-2. Up-Pradhan. Gram Panchayat, Bhatoli. has stated that when after delivery of the wife in her parents house her husband did not come to take her back a KHANGI Panchayat was held in march, 1997 in the house of MLA O.P. Rattan in which the persons present on behalf of the husband admitted their fault but despite this the husband did not come to take the wife to her matrimonial home, therefore, second KHANGI Panchayat was held on 31.5.1997 in which uncle of the husband was given rebuke as a result of which after 4-5 days the husband took the wife to her matrimonial home but after 10-15 days she again came back to her parents house. In his cross-examination he stuck to his statement in examination-in-chief in respect of two KHANGI Panchayat though admitted that the wife belongs to his village as well as brotherhood. 17. Amar Nath. RW-3. who was running his REHRI at Thein Dam in the colony in which the father of the wife was residing, has stated that once the father of the wife had come to him in the night at about 2.30 AM and took him to his house where his daughter, the wife, had told him that she was shunted out of the house by her husband after giving her beatings for not bringing enough dowry and that the husband had demanded money. This witness has shown his inability to tell whether this statement of the wife was true or false- However, he had suggested to the father of the wife that she might be sent back to her matrimonial home by the next morning. In his cross-examination he has denied that after 19.8.1993 he was not running his REHRI. 18. Roshan Lal. RW-4. the father of the wife, has corroborated the statement of the wife in all respects. As per him. in July. In his cross-examination he has denied that after 19.8.1993 he was not running his REHRI. 18. Roshan Lal. RW-4. the father of the wife, has corroborated the statement of the wife in all respects. As per him. in July. 1995 when his daughter came to his house in the night after she was given beatings and shunted out by the husband he along with his neighbor Amar Nath took her back to her matrimonial home on the next morning. This witness has further stated that as compelled by the husband he had paid an amount of Rs. 15.000/- in November. 1995 in the presence of members of his family and thereafter the relations of the parties had improved. In June. 1996 the wife was left in his house for the purpose of deliver and she gave birth to a son on 21.9.1996 but neither the husband nor any member of his family came to bless the child and he was compelled to arrange the KHANGI Panchayat. In second KHANGI Panchayat held in May 1997 the husband had apologized for his misconduct and thereafter took the wife to his home on 31.5.1997 but again shunted her out of his house on 21.7.1997 after giving her beating. Since then she was living in his house. Under these circumstances the wife had filed a complaint in the police but he was ready and willing to send her back to her matrimonial home. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he has not given any notice protesting the demand of Rs.50.000/- and dowry as well as filed complaint for he maltreatment of his daughter. According to him. he did not possess any receipt for Rs. 15.000/- but has explained that Rs.5.000/- were given out of his pay and remaining amount of Rs. 10.000/- he had borrowed from his son: He has denied that the wife is of quarrel some nature and she does not intend to reside with the husband. 19. After analysing the pleadings and evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the ground of cruelty is not made out and the findings of the District Judge in this regard are erroneous. 19. After analysing the pleadings and evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the ground of cruelty is not made out and the findings of the District Judge in this regard are erroneous. Except the general allegations that the wife used to quarrel with the husband, his elder brother and sister-in-law and used to leave his house for the house of V her parents without his consent, no specific instance of cruelty which would cause physical and mental agony or torture has either been alleged in the pleadings or proved by way of evidence. The District Judge has held that the insinuations made by the wife of Rs.50.000/- and payment of Rs. 15.000/ by her father and filing of complaint Ex.DA before the Superintendent of Police. Gurdaspur on 2.9.1997 on the allegations, inter-alia, of harassment and maltreatment for not fulfilling the demand of Rs.50.000/- and for not bringing sufficient dowry caused mental torture or agony to the husband and made him scared to live in the company of the wife. According to the District Judge, the allegations of demand of Rs.50.000/- and payment of Rs. 15.000/ by the father of the wife are not substantiated as the wife has not referred to them in her statement and her father has not come forward to support her. which is factually incorrect. Both the wife and her father while appearing as RW-1 and RW-4 have reiterated these allegations in their evidence. Rather, the statement of the wife that the husband had demanded Rs. 50.000/- and an amount of Rs. 15.000/- was paid by her father in November. 1995 has not been controverted in the cross-examination. On the other hand, father of the wife Roshan Lal RW-4 has further explained in cross- examination that Rs.5.000/- were given out of his pay and the remaining amount of Rs. 10.000/- he had borrowed from his son which statement has also not been controverted. 20. Another reason for holding the allegations of the wife as false is that on the basis of her complaint Ex.DA no case was registered by the police. In our opinion, the District Judge is not right in drawing such an inference in the absence of any material on record as to what weighed with the police in not registering the case. In our opinion, the District Judge is not right in drawing such an inference in the absence of any material on record as to what weighed with the police in not registering the case. Further, despite the evidence of the wife and her witnesses that she was being harassed, maltreated and even shunted out of the house by the husband on a number of occasions and lastly on 21.7.1997. the District Judge has held her guilty of leaving her matrimonial home without any reason, whereas, it is the husband who had admittedly not visited the wife after her delivery in the house of her parents to bless his newly born son and did not take them to his house after the first KHANGI Panchayat held in March. 1997. which speaks volumes of his irresponsible behaviour and conduct of being negligent and harassing his wife without any reason and cause. The statement of the husband that he is working as servant in the HAL WAI shop of his elder brother and living in his house with his family shows that he is under the influence of his elder brother and sister-in-law and he never wanted to bring the wife and son to his house and having been compelled in the second KHANGI Panchayat held on 19.5.1997 he took them to his house and again turned them out or compelled the wife to leave along with her son after about two months on 21.7.1997 and thereafter hastened to Hie the petition 2.8.1997. In these facts and circumstances the wife had filed complaint Ex.DA with the Superintendent of Police. Gurdaspur on 2.9.1997 as a last resort and by that time the husband had already filed petition for divorce on 2.8.1997. 21. Therefore, in our opinion, the judgment of the District Judge is one sided. Instead of holding that the husband has miserablv failed to prove his case that the behaviour and conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty, the District Judge has granted decree of divorce by holding that the allegations made by her in respect of demand of Rs.50,000/- and payment of Rs. 15.000/- by her father and filing of complaint Ex.DA are false. 15.000/- by her father and filing of complaint Ex.DA are false. If we approve these findings of the District Judge it will amount to putting a premium on the misconduct and misbehaviour of the husband as alleged by the wife in her written statement and also proved by producing evidence by way of her defence to the divorce petition. Admittedly, the complaint Ex.DA was filed on 2.9.1997 after the filing of the petition on 2.8.199? as such, it could not provide additional cause of action for the husband to file divorce petition on the ground of cruelty as wrongly presumed by the District Judge. 22. The word cruelty as envisaged under Section 13(l)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act has been interpreted by Supreme Court in its various judgments. In Shoba Rani v. Madhukar Reddi. AIR 1988 SC 121. the learned Judges have held in paragraph 4:- "Section 13(1) (i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted." It is further held that a set of facts stigmatized as cruelty" in one case may not be so in another case. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted." It is further held that a set of facts stigmatized as cruelty" in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type or life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Therefore, the Judges and lawyers should not import their own notions of life. 23. In another judgment in J.L. Nanda v. Smt. Veena Nanda. AIR 1988 SC 407. the learned Judges have held that if the temperament of spouses is not conducive to each other resulting in petty quarrels, it does not amount to cruelty for dissolving their marriage. 24. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat. 1994 (1) SCC 337 the learned Judges have answered the question that what kind of maltreatment does Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act contemplate and. in particular, what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established. The question is answered in paragraph 16 of the judgment. It is :- "Mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) 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 part to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of i such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in. the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustivel. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustivel. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations regard must also be had to the context it which they were made." 25. Applying the ratio of above cited judgments to the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the allegations made by the wife in her written statement in respect of demand of Rs. 50.000/- and payment of Rs, 15.000/- by her father as well as that of harassment and maltreatment made in defence are not totally unfounded and do not cast such aspersions on the husband as to constitute matrimonial cruelty to entitle him the decree of divorce. If in order to get rid of the wife, the husband makes false allegations, she facts against the imaginary and irresponsible allegations and averments made in the petition. Unless these are proved to be unfounded allegations and aspersions on character, honour or reputation or status or health of the husband, these cannot be used for granting him a decree of divorce by holding that these constitute matrimonial cruelty. 26. The result of above discussions is that we find merit in this appeal and it is allowed with costs. The decree of divorce granted by the District Judge is set aside. In the result the petition for divorce filed by the husband is dismissed.