Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 514 (MAD)

Premendra Gupta v. Sunita Gupta

2001-04-23

A.SUBBULAKSHMY, P.SHANMUGAM

body2001
Judgment :- Mrs.A.Subbulakshmy, J.: Husband is the appellant in both the appeals. 2. The husband/ petitioner filed O.P.No.210 of 1996 in the Family Court, Madras for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The case of the petitionerw/ husband is as follows: The petitioner and respondent got married on 25.2.1993 according to Hindu rites. Out of their lawful wedlock, a son was born to them on 29.12.1993. The petitioner and respondent left for their honeymoon to Kodaikanal on 9.3.1993 immediately after their marriage and they were staying at Hotel for four days and three nights. During their stay at Kodaikanal, the petitioner found that the respondent/ wife was very obstinante, arrogant, cunning and crafty nature in so far as the petitioner and his parents are concerned. The respondents mother was perpetually interfering in the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the respondent. Just because the petitioner refused to take the respondent out on the last day in Kodaikanal, the respondent threw a tantrum, made a scene and became so sulky and she refused even to talk to the petitioner, eat any food that night or have breakfast the next morning and even refused to have marital relationship till the petitioner had to beg for pardon and only then the respondent had her lunch on the last day though throughout the return journey the respondent was very aloof and sulking. This behaviour and attitude of the respondent took the petitioner very much unawares, but on reaching Madras, the respondent painted a picture in such a glowing term, not even whispering about her tantrum, and in fact even denying it totally and the petitioner was left helpless. By the end of March, 1993, the petitioners parents left for a visit to Kathamandu, leaving the petitioner and the respondent alone at home. At that time, the petitioner was subjected to untold cruelty, both mental and physical by the respondent and her people and the petitioner developed a fear and apathy towards the respondent. By the end of March, 1993, the petitioners parents left for a visit to Kathamandu, leaving the petitioner and the respondent alone at home. At that time, the petitioner was subjected to untold cruelty, both mental and physical by the respondent and her people and the petitioner developed a fear and apathy towards the respondent. The petitioners father is running two loading houses availing of the concession in telephone tariff, outstation telephone calls, STD used to come and were made and received for business and other purposes, by the petitioner usually only after 10.00 p.m. and as the telephone instrument was only in the hall, there were times when the petitioner anticipating calls used to sleep off in the hall and not in the bedroom, and this was complained of by the respondent to her mother who in fact went out of the way to scold, chastize and find fault with the petitioner much to his embarrassment and humiliation. During the absence of his parents, the petitioner used to leave the respondent in her parents house and while returning from office, he used to bring the respondent back with him, but then, the respondent would pick up quarrels and arguments over nothing and she would not let the petitioner to sleep till 2.00 am of next day thus causing immense cruelty both mental and physical on the petition. Even though the petitioner took the respondent to temple, to visit friends, or go to beach or to hotel etc., the respondent made it a habit to say that the petitioner was not giving enough and sufficient time to the respondent and started picking up quarrels and arguments over it. The petitioner being busy in his work could not clarify the matter with all and the respondent cunningly exploited this situation and went about tarnishing the image and fair made of the petitioner, much to the mental torture and embarrassment of the petitioner. The petitioner being busy in his work could not clarify the matter with all and the respondent cunningly exploited this situation and went about tarnishing the image and fair made of the petitioner, much to the mental torture and embarrassment of the petitioner. The respondent also made it a point to pick up quarrels and indulge in hostilities with the petitioners parents and baselessly accusing them of harming the respondent and started poisoning the ears of the petitioner and others above it, but when the petitioner refused to accede to the respondents motivated requests to live separately from the petitioners parents, the respondent started falsely accusing the petitioner of having an affair with a girl called Kavitha who was a sister to the petitioner thereby causing immense mental anguish and cruelty on the petitioner. In September 1994, the petitioner along with the respondent, the said Kavitha, her brother and another friend had gone to the beach in the petitioners car and while returning when the petitioner was driving with the respondent sitting besides him, the brother of Kavitha wanted to drive the car and so the petitioner came to the rear seat and on the way happened to be accused and come across uncle of the respondent, but this simple incident was even beyond proportions by the respondent and her family to bring out the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was very bad, portraying sit separately even while travelling in the car. So, in such a way, the respondent was tarnishing the name of the petitioner. Further, it was a common habit of the respondent to leave the matrimonial home without informing him. In May/June, 1993 and again in November, 1993 the respondent left the matrimonial home for no reason or rhyme and on the latter occasion the respondent even refused to come back to the matrimonial home though at the time she was in advance stage of pregnancy. Even though a child was born at 11.30 a.m. on 29.12.1993. It was informed to the petitioner only at 12.30 p.m. on 29.12.1993. When the petitioner went to the hospital to see the child, the respondent asked the petitioner as to whether the petitioner or the respondent was to keep the child. It shows that the respondent had already made up her mind not live with the petitioner. It was informed to the petitioner only at 12.30 p.m. on 29.12.1993. When the petitioner went to the hospital to see the child, the respondent asked the petitioner as to whether the petitioner or the respondent was to keep the child. It shows that the respondent had already made up her mind not live with the petitioner. Even though the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent became strained, still in April 1994, both the petitioner and respondent went to Bangalore to attend a friends wedding, but the respondent insisted not to take the child with her, and therefore, for three days the child had to be looked after by the petitioners mother who was, even otherwise, always looking after the child. On 12.4.1994, when the petitioner was to leave for Delhi for some business work, the respondent insisted on accompanying the petitioner which the petitioner refused and on that the respondent attempted to commit suicide by taking overdose of sleeping pills and locking herself in but on the timely information given by the house servant, the respondent was immediately taken to hospital and treated by Dr.Radhika Balakrishnan. This only demonstrates the dangerous trails and nature of the respondent. It had become the habit of the respondent to abuse, accuse, throw tantrums, became whimsical and moody, but on many occasions the respondent even attempted to raise her hands on the petitioner and in one occasion even took up a bottle to hit the petitioner in her fit of uncontrolled or uncontrollable temper. the matter between the petitioner and the respondent reached a headway after June, 1994, before and after the naming ceremony of the child who according to auspices was named as Chirag Gupta, but, this name was against and opposed to the wishes of the respondent who wanted to name the child as Nikhil Gupta and the repeated explanations to pacify the respondent that the name Nikhil was not auspicious for the child fell on the deaf ears of the respondent who refused to see any reasons. After this, the respondent turned the matrimonial home into a virtual hell till finally and after fighting with everyone in the matrimonial home including the petitioners sister who was then there, the respondent on 24.7.1994, called her father to the matrimonial home and without either informing the petitioner or getting his consent, deserted him and left the matrimonial home and thereafter there has been no co-habitation between the petitioner and the respondent who were also not on talking terms with each other. The respondent then resorted to even witchcraft and black magic and surprisingly, she came to the matrimonial home on 28.12.1994 allegedly to invite the petitioner to come and attend their sons birthday party organised at Presidency Club, and on the pretext of wanting to take the medical file, went upto the petitioners bedroom and thereafter left and when the petitioner went to the bedroom, immediately after the respondent had left, the sprinkled on the bed, under the pillow and on opening the cupboard found it on all clothes like shirts, pants, etc. of the petitioner and on going to the bathroom, even on the towel and clothes hanging there, and on further search even behind the dressing table contained in a packet and thereafter the petitioner becoming suspicious did not go or sleep in the room and the next day with the help of a knowledgeable healer came to know that all this was done to cast a spell on the petitioner and it was lucky that the petitioner had not used the bedroom or bathroom otherwise, the petitioner would have been afflicted. Surprisingly, again, on 16.1.1995, the respondent called the petitioner asking him to come and see the respondent immediately and when the petitioner refused to come then and there, after just half an hour or so there after the petitioner once again received a call from the younger sister of the respondent informing that the respondent had once again attempted to commit suicide and had been taken to the doctor for treatment, though the petitioner did not go and see the respondent thereafter. In August 1995, an endeavour was made by the respondents family for a reconciliation, but the petitioner was not willing to accept the respondent back as she had not changed in any manner, but, was becoming more and more desperate to harm the petitioner and his family. In August 1995, an endeavour was made by the respondents family for a reconciliation, but the petitioner was not willing to accept the respondent back as she had not changed in any manner, but, was becoming more and more desperate to harm the petitioner and his family. The respondent had falsely alleged that monies had been given by the respondents people for the purchase of a car and a list of jewellery and other articles of nearly Rs.13 lakhs alleged to have been left behind by the respondent in the matrimonial home. In December 1995, the birthday of their son was celebrated by the respondent and on the birthday cake, the sons name was given as Chirag when the suit filed in the High Court was by the minor named as Nikhil which shows the unstable mind of the respondent. There are many more instances which will substantiate the fact that owing the immense mental and physical cruelties inflicted on the petitioner by the respondent and it is no longer possible for the petitioner to rejoin and live with the respondent. So, the petitioner seeks for a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. The respondent filed counter contending that all the allegations levelled against her are false. She further contends as follows: At the time of marriage, the respondents parents had given gold jewellery weighing over 1 kg, and Silver and other utensils weighing over 2 kg. and other valuable items worth Rs.2.5 lakhs apart from the marriage expenses which exceeded Rs.6.5 lakhs. All these did not appear to have satisfied the requirements of the petitioner and his parents. The respondent was subjected to both physical and mental torture on the ground that she did not bring petitioners family enough dowry. The petitioners mother had demanded from the respondents family furniture worth Rs.1,00,000 and other items. The respondents mother in law used to frequently scold the respondent and used to even lock up the kitchen and refrigerator in order to deprive the respondent any access to food and other eatables. This ill-treatment even continued during the respondents pregnancy in the month of September, 1993 and it was the petitioners mother who decided that the respondent should be sent back to her parents house even though she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. This ill-treatment even continued during the respondents pregnancy in the month of September, 1993 and it was the petitioners mother who decided that the respondent should be sent back to her parents house even though she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. After sending the respondent, neither the petitioner nor his parents cared to visit or even ascertain the welfare of the respondent. The petitioners mother continued to harass and physically assault the respondent for more dowry. The petitioner was never subjected to any cruelty and the respondent had at no point of time refused to discharge her duties as wife of the petitioner. Even after separation between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.7.1994 and exchange of legal notices and letters, when the respondent had gone to the petitioners house on 28.12.1994 to invite him over to their sons birthday celebrations on 29.12.1994, the petitioner had taken physical advantage of the respondents gullibility by promising their approachment and reunion. The allegation that there was one telephone which is in the hall and so, he used to sleep in the hall is not correct. The respondent was not given freedom to make phone calls from her matrimonial home to her mothers house. The respondent never used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner. The petitioner used to take the respondent to her mothers house only occasionally. The nature of the relationship that subsisted between the petitioner and a girl called Kavitha is the special knowledge of the petitioner and the respondent does not seek to make any comments on the said matter and would rather leave it to the petitioner conscience. The respondent never left the matrimonial home without express permission of the petitioner and his parents. In November 1993, the respondent was sent to her parents house by the petitioner and his parents themselves. Even after admission of the respondent in one hospital for delivery, the petitioner did not bother to find out about her well being or that of the child. However, the petitioners mother made it a point to visit the hospital everyday mainly with a view to collect all the cash and other gifts given by the friends and relatives of the respondent. The news of the child birth was immediately informed to all relatives and friends. The date of discharge from the hospital was intimated to the petitioner and his parents well in advance. The news of the child birth was immediately informed to all relatives and friends. The date of discharge from the hospital was intimated to the petitioner and his parents well in advance. Even prior to Bangalore trip, the petitioner had gone to Delhi on 28.2.1994 leaving the respondent and her child with his parents. the petitioner returned from Delhi on 18.3.1994. Then the petitioner again made claims to go to Delhi on 14.4.1994. When the respondent requested on 12.4.1994 to take her and the baby also along with him, the said request was flatly refused by the petitioner. The petitioner in total disregard of her condition left for Delhi as planned by him even without informing the respondent. The petitioner wanted to name their child as Chirag while the respondent wanted to name him as Nikhil. However, the said issue was immediately sorted out after the respondent gave into the petitioners request and agreed to call the child as Chirag and use Nikhil as his pet name. If it were known to the respondent that such a trivial issue could become so serious so far as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent would have readily given up the very name Nikhil and acceded to the petitioners wishes up the very name Nikhil and acceded to the petitioners wishes by giving only one name to the child. Throughout the married life the respondent was subjected to severe mental and physical torture. The mother in law of the respondent always made it a point to say that the respondent was ugly to look at and that she had no sufficient resources to meet their demands. The petitioner was contemplating marriage with Ms.Kavitha. This was the first occasion the respondent had come to know of an ongoing affair between the petitioner and Kavitha. All other allegations of attempts of suicide by the respondent, resort to black magic, etc. are false and baseless. 4. The wife as petitioner filed O.P.No.1075 of 1999 in the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights directing her husband the respondent to take the petitioner back to matrimonial home contending that the respondent/ husband is not taking her back and her mother in law had forcibly threw her out of the respondents house and she is keen in living with the respondent. 5. 5. The husband as respondent filed counter in O.P.No.1075 of 1999 contending that the petitioner ill-treated him and caused much mental and physical cruelty on him and the petitioner also attempted to commit suicide twice and under such circumstances it is impossible for him to live with her and he had also filed O.P.No.210 of 1996 for divorce and so, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights has to be dismissed. 6. The Family Court, after hearing both the parties, passed common order dismissing the petitioner for divorce and allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 7. Aggrieved against that order, the husband as appellant has preferred both the appeals. 8. For the sake of convenience, the husband is hereinafter called as appellant and wife is called as respondent. 9. Point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Family Court is sustainable. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was subjected to much mental and physical cruelty by the activities of the wife the respondent and the appellant is entitled to decree for divorce. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant has made false allegations against the respondent on some flimsy grounds and all the allegations levelled against the respondent are of no substance and the respondent was not properly treated by the appellant and his mother and under such circumstances the appellant came forward with the flimsy allegations against the respondent and the order passed by the Family Court is not entitled to be interfered with. 12. The appellant as P.W.1 deposed that from 24.7.1994, himself and the respondent are living separately and as the respondent caused cruelty to him, he has filed the petition for divorce. He further says that after the marriage, during their stay at Kodaikanal for Honey Moon, the appellant did not take her out and so the respondent quarrelled with him and she did not even take food and only after he begged her pardon, she took food and after return, she was keeping quiet as if nothing has happened. He further says that after the marriage, during their stay at Kodaikanal for Honey Moon, the appellant did not take her out and so the respondent quarrelled with him and she did not even take food and only after he begged her pardon, she took food and after return, she was keeping quiet as if nothing has happened. The evidence of R.W.1 is that the during the stay at Kodaikanal, the appellant took her out only for two hours and he never took her out and on the last day, she asked her husband the appellant to take her out and the appellant never used to take her whenever he goes out. The allegation of the appellant that he did not take her out during their stay at Kodaikanal and so the respondent got angry and did not take food appears to be very flimsy. Of course R.W.1 also admits in her evidence that she asked the appellant to take her out at Kodaikanal and he refused to take her out. Immediately after the marriage, appellant and respondent went to Kodaikanal for honeymoon. the respondent being newly married lady asked her husband to take her out. P.W.1 also admits in his evidence that even after the respondents insistence to take her out, he did not take her out. Nothing wrong on the part of the respondent in asking her husband to take her out especially when they have gone to Kodaikanal for honeymoon. The case of the appellant that because he did not take her out, she got angry appears to be very silly and that cannot amount to causing of cruelty on the appellant by the respondent. 13. The case of the appellant is that when his parents went to Kathamandu, he was sleeping in the hall where there was one phone and they used to receive calls and STD used to come and were made and received for business and other purposes, by the petitioner usually only after 10.00 p.m. and as the telephone instrument was only in the hall, he used to sleep in the hall and not in the bedroom, and this was complained of by the respondent to her mother who called him and abused him and this also amounts to cruelty. The evidence of R.W.1 is that her husband used to sleep in the hall expecting STD calls and she told him that even by sleeping in the bed room they can hear the ring of the phone, but the appellant would not listen to that and he would continue to sleep only in the hall. The allegation of the appellant is that the respondent told this matter to her mother and her mother abused him. the respondents action in insisting her husband to sleep in the bedroom because they can hear the ring of the phone even by sleeping in the bed room cannot be said to an indifferent attitude on the part of the wife the respondent and at any rate it cannot be stated to be causing cruelty on the husband the appellant. P.W.1 further says that the respondent informed her mother about his sleeping in the hall and her mother abused him and though he explained her that only to attend the phone calls in the night, he was sleeping in the hall and there is no problem with regard to that and even afterwards, the respondents mother abused him. For this allegation, except the interested testimony of the appellant to make out some allegation against the respondent, there is no acceptable evidence. So, this allegation levelled against the respondent has not been proved. 14. The allegations of the appellant is that the respondent used to go to her parents house often. The evidence of R.W.1 is that only occasionally, she used to go to her parents house and the appellant also never used to take her out and only during the absence of his parents, the appellant used to leave her in her parents house and during her stay in her parents house, he used to visit her once in three or four days. She further says that only her mother in law viz., the appellants mother used to ill-treat her by teasing her that she was black and they agreed for the marriage only under the impression that they would get more dowry and the respondents parents did not give that much of dowry as expected by her. R.W.1 further says that her mother in law never give her proper food and she used to give her only cold rice and rotten bread. R.W.1 further says that her mother in law never give her proper food and she used to give her only cold rice and rotten bread. The further evidence of R.W.1 is that because she was black, her mother in law, told her that she should eat only ‘rasagulla’ or some other articles in the morning and she was also told that if the child was black, she should not come to the matrimonial home and she should take the child only to her parents house and she also used to list out and give it to her setting out the jewels to be given to the child to her and to the appellant. She has further deposed that when she was pregnant, her husband the appellant took her to Malar Hospital and at the instance of the appellants mother, the appellant did not take her to the hospital and only her parents took her to the hospital and she lost her weight and the Doctor advised her to take drips and only her parents took her to hospital. She has also filed Ex.R-3 the medical record book of the respondent during her pregnancy given by Malar Hospital. Her further evidence is that during her pregnancy, he was suffering from fatigue and blood pressure and neither the appellant nor his parents took care of her and for confinement, she went to her mothers house and then the child was born and immediately her father informed about the birth of the child to the appellant and his father and the appellant and his parents also came and visited the respondent and the child in the hospital. 15. Even though the appellant has alleged in the petition that he was informed about the birth of the child belatedly, in his evidence, he admits that after the child was born, himself, his relatives and his parents went and saw the respondent in the hospital and at the time of birth of the child, his mother was staying in the hospital for two or three days. P.W.1 also admits in his evidence that as the respondent was fatigue, during pregnancy, she was in the hospital by taking drips and in November, 1993 and in December, 1993 the child was born. He admits that during her stay in her parents house, he did not visit her. P.W.1 also admits in his evidence that as the respondent was fatigue, during pregnancy, she was in the hospital by taking drips and in November, 1993 and in December, 1993 the child was born. He admits that during her stay in her parents house, he did not visit her. The explanation given by him is that as the respondent quarrelled and went to her parents house, he did not visit her. The evidence of P.W.1 that after the child was born, himself, his parents and relatives went and visited the respondent and the child and his mother also stayed in the hospital for two or three days clearly belies the allegation made in the petition that the matter with regard to the birth of the child was informed to the appellant belatedly. Further, even the delay as alleged by the appellant is not of much significant because there is only a gap of hours even as per the allegation. The admission of P.W.1 in his evidence that himself, his parents and relatives went and visited the respondent and the child and his mother also stayed in the hospital for two or three days goes to establish that there was no fault on the apart of the respondent and her parents and the appellant has come forward with some frivolous allegations against the respondent to spite the respondent. 16. The next allegation of the appellant is that he was moving closer with the Kavitha who is his rocky sister and he was treating her as sister and moving with her having the relationship of sister alone and the respondent used to suspect him unnecessarily as if he was having illicit intimacy with the said Kavitha and this also caused mental cruelty to him. P.W.1 during the course of cross examination has stated that Kavitha is her rocky sister and he was moving with her as her brother. P.W.1 during the course of cross examination has stated that Kavitha is her rocky sister and he was moving with her as her brother. The evidence of R.W.1 is that she never saw the said Kavitha tying rocky to the appellant and even after the marriage, the said Kavitha used to come alone to the appellants house and the appellant was moving with the closely and the appellant would not take the respondent out, but he used to take the said Kavitha out and the respondents uncle also told her that he saw the appellant and Kavitha together and at that time, she was admitted in the hospital and the appellant never came and visited her in the hospital, but he was taking Kavitha outside. Her further evidence is that even the friends of the appellant and the sisters husband of the appellant informed her about the affair of the appellant with Kavitha. She suspected her husband the appellant. 17. R.W.1 specifically says that Kavitha is the sister of the appellants friend and the appellant and Kavitha were moving so closely and she never suspected him initially and she also did not take the moving of the appellant with Kavitha wrongly either before or after the marriage. The specific evidence of R.W.1 is that even if the respondent did not accompany him, the appellant used to go with Kavitha and if Kavitha did not come, he would not take the respondent out and so, she suspected the conduct of the appellant and asked the appellant not to take Kavitha out and misunderstanding arose between the appellant and the respondent and the said Kavitha did not come and pacify the matter. 18. R.W.1 further says that once herself, the appellant, Kavitha and her brother went in car to the Beach and in that car the appellant and the respondent were sitting in front and the said Kavitha and her brother were sitting in the back seat and Kavithas brother wanted to drive the car and he came to front set and he was driving the car and at that time, the appellant went and sat in the back seat and the appellant was travelling in that car by sitting by the side of Kavitha and this was also witnessed by the uncle of the respondent and so, the respondent contends that the appellant was having some illegal relationship with Kavitha. 19. 19. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the said Kavitha is married now. Even though the said Kavitha is married now, the appellant had contact with the said Kavitha. Prior to her marriage, he was going with her alone and refusing to take the respondent would have raised reasonable suspicion in the mind of the respondent who is a young wife and it cannot be stated by the appellant that unnecessarily the respondent suspected the conduct of the appellant and caused mental agony to him. In Ex.P-6, she has stated that her husband may be advised to overcome his last for other women and see that it is family which is important and not extra marital life. she had requested to treat this request from helpless young lady and not as an allegation. This clearly shows that the respondent never put this to tarnish the image or cause mental cruelty. On the other hand, it is the respondent who had suffered and borne all the humiliation and had only requested for a fair treatment. 20. The next allegation of the appellant is that the respondent used to threaten him by saying that she would commit suicide. The evidence of P.W.1 is that when he refused to take the respondent to Delhi, she attempted to commit suicide, but he admits that when he went to Delhi, the respondent fell down from staircase and sustained injury. The evidence of R.W.1 is that as her mother in law was ill-treating her she told him that she would accompany him for Delhi, but, the appellant beat her and went to Delhi. She further says that she also wrote letter to her husband only with the intention that her husband would take her to Delhi, but there was no change at all on the part of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the respondent attempted to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills, but the case of the respondent is that she was taking medicine for her stomach problem. 21. The counsel for the respondent submitted that only for the stomach problem, the respondent was taking medicine and she never attempted to commit suicide. R.W.1s evidence is that she was suffering from stomach pain and her in laws did not asked her to Dr.Radhika Balakrishnan. 21. The counsel for the respondent submitted that only for the stomach problem, the respondent was taking medicine and she never attempted to commit suicide. R.W.1s evidence is that she was suffering from stomach pain and her in laws did not asked her to Dr.Radhika Balakrishnan. Except the vague allegation raised by the appellant in the petition, absolutely there is no acceptable evidence to prove that the respondent attempted to commit suicide. The said Dr.Radhika Balakrishnan has been examined as R.W.2 and her evidence shows that she gave treatment to the respondent for 10 or 12 years and the respondent was not taking treatment for any big disease and she was suffering only from gastric trouble and for that she gave prescription Ex.P-4. Her evidence is that she did not prescribe any medicine under Ex.P-4 for treatment for having taken poison or sleeping pills and the medicines prescribed under Ex.P-4 is for gastric trouble alone and if really the respondent took any sleeping pills or any other poisonous medicine, he would have sent her to the Government Hospital for treatment and she took treatment under her only for acidity and gastric trouble. So, the evidence of R.W.2 and the prescription under Ex.P-4 go to establish that the doctor never treated her for taking poison or sleeping pills and the respondent was suffering from acidity and gastric trouble and only for that the doctor gave treatment. So, at no stretch of imagination it can be stated by the appellant that the respondent attempted to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills. The allegation of the appellant that the respondent again attempted to commit suicide on 16.1.1995. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the received information over phone that the respondent was attempting to commit suicide, but he did not go and see her, but the respondent was not living with him from June 1994. R.W.3 the sister of the respondent has spoken in her evidence that she does not know anything about the respondent calling the appellant over phone on 16.1.1995. She has completely denied in her evidence with regard to the allegation made by the appellant. During the course of cross examination, R.W.3 says that on 16.1.1995 and she came to know later that the respondent went to the hospital on 16.1.1995. The categorical evidence of R.W.3 is that she never rang up to the appellant. She has completely denied in her evidence with regard to the allegation made by the appellant. During the course of cross examination, R.W.3 says that on 16.1.1995 and she came to know later that the respondent went to the hospital on 16.1.1995. The categorical evidence of R.W.3 is that she never rang up to the appellant. So, with regard to the allegation of the appellant that the respondent attempted to commit suicide, absolutely there is no proof. Even the doctor has given treatment only for gastric problem and not for having taken poison or sleeping pills. So, the allegation raised by the appellant against the respondent is only vexatious. 22. The case of the appellant is that he wanted to name the child as “Chirag”, but the respondent insisted him the name “Nikhil” and even in naming the child, the respondent was creating problem and she was not at all amenable and she never took his word and she was creating trouble in all aspects. The evidence of R.W.1 is that she wanted to name the child as Nikhil and as her husband wanted to name the child as Chirag and she left it for his choice and she did not insist in that matter, but she admits that she wanted to name the child as Nikhil, but as per the wish to the appellant, she conceded for naming the child as Chirag, but only in the petitioners house they took it as a great problem for naming the child. 23. The counsel for the appellant submitted that even in the case filed by the respondent in the High Court their sons name is given as Nikhil only but in the school record, the name of the child is given as Chirag. R.W.1 says that only the name Chirag is given in the school records and the child is also studying well in the school. The evidence of R.W.1 is that only her mother-in-law used to come and take away all the presentations given to the child and the respondent never give any trouble to the appellant or his family members. So, the allegation of the appellant that even for naming the child, the respondent was creating trouble is devoid of any merits. 24. The evidence of R.W.1 is that only her mother-in-law used to come and take away all the presentations given to the child and the respondent never give any trouble to the appellant or his family members. So, the allegation of the appellant that even for naming the child, the respondent was creating trouble is devoid of any merits. 24. The case of the appellant is that the respondent came to his house on the pretext of inviting him for the birthday of their son, but she went inside the bed room as if she wanted to take some medical file and she sprinkled some brown power near the cot and inside the bathroom and on opening the cupboard he found it on all clothes like shirts, pants, etc. of the petitioner and on going to the bathroom, even on the towel and clothes hanging there, and on further search even behind the dressing table contained in a packet and thereafter the petitioner becoming suspicious did not go or sleep in the room and the next day with the help of a knowledgeable healer came to know that all this was done to caste a spell on the petitioner and it was lucky that the petitioner had not used the bedroom or bathroom otherwise, the petitioner would have been afflicted. But, the evidence of R.W.1 is that she went to the appellants house only to invite for the birth day of their son and at that time the appellant took her to the upstairs and he was taking with her in good terms and they were very cordial and they also had marital relationship and the appellant also promised to attend the birthday party. P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination denied this and he says that when the respondent came to his house to invite him for the birthday of their son, he was not at all in the house. The evidence of P.W.1 is contra to the allegation made in the petition. In the petitioner the appellant has specifically stated that the respondent came to his house went inside the bed room and sprinkled some brown powder in his bedroom. But, in evidence, P.W.1 says that when the respondent came to his house, he was not at all in the house. In the petitioner the appellant has specifically stated that the respondent came to his house went inside the bed room and sprinkled some brown powder in his bedroom. But, in evidence, P.W.1 says that when the respondent came to his house, he was not at all in the house. This shows that P.W.1 is not a witness of truth and somehow or other, he wants to get rid of the relationship of the respondent. 25. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent used to make allegation as if himself and his parents demanded dowry and this also caused cruelty to the appellant. The respondent says that she never made any such allegation. The evidence of R.W.1 is that only her parents gave the car to the appellant at the time of marriage. 26. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the car was purchased from the money given by the appellants father and the respondents father did not give any amount to the appellant. R.W.1s evidence is that her father borrowed money and gave it to the appellants father for purchasing the car and only from and out of that money, the car was purchased and it was given at the time of marriage by the grand parents of the respondent and the photograph filed also proves this. The categorical evidence of R.W.1 is that the appellants father received cash from the respondents father for purchasing the car. The appellant file receipt Ex.P-15 and the pay slip Ex.P-16. The appellants father has signed in Ex.P-15. R.W.1 further says that Ex.P-15 is the bank account of the appellants father. So, the documentary evidence and the photographs filed to establish that only the respondents father gave money for purchase of the car and gave the car to the appellant. Only the respondents father gave money for purchase of the ear and the car was presented to the appellant at the time of marriage by the grandparents of the respondent who are the eldest members of the respondents family. Even though the respondent has not stated in her counter that only her father gave money of Rs.2,40,000 to the appellants father for purchase of car, the evidence of R.W.1 and other documents prove that only her father gave money to the appellants father. Even though the respondent has not stated in her counter that only her father gave money of Rs.2,40,000 to the appellants father for purchase of car, the evidence of R.W.1 and other documents prove that only her father gave money to the appellants father. R.W.1s evidence is that her father borrowed Rs.2,40,000 from one K.Mani and gave that amount to the appellants father for purchase of car and her father is paying interest for that amount to the said Mani. Even though the said Mani has not been examined, the photograph and other documents go to prove that only the respondents father gave money to the appellants father and presented the car to the appellant. 27. It is seen that reconciliation also went on and that did not fructified. To prove that P.W.2 has been examined. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. He says that a meeting was held in hotel Picnic and for that meeting the respondent, her parents and her grand parents were present and that meeting would have been held on 10.1.1995 and the appellant did not attend that meeting. P.W.2 says that he never asked to accept the appellant and respondent for divorce. He states that the meeting was held only for reconciliation between the appellant and the respondent and for that only the parents and grandparents came, but the matter could not be reconciled. P.W.2s evidence shows that he is making even small matters as big ones. But, he states that only the respondent used to make small matters into big ones and create trouble. On a perusal of the entire evidence, it is seen that only the appellant is making small matters into big ones. 28. Nothing transpires from the oral evidence that the respondent was causing cruelty to the appellant. On a perusal of the evidence it is seen that only the appellant is creating mountainous affair from a small affair. From the affidavit filed by the appellant in the High Court it is seen that the appellant himself admitted with regard to the availability of articles of the respondent with him as stated in the annexure therein. So, it is seen that the articles of the respondent are also available with the appellant. From the documents filed, it is seen that the respondents wife was very polite and longing for the love of her husband the appellant. So, it is seen that the articles of the respondent are also available with the appellant. From the documents filed, it is seen that the respondents wife was very polite and longing for the love of her husband the appellant. The letter Ex.P-2 written by the wife to the appellant shows that she loves him a lot and in that letter, she asked to look after the kid and not to ignore him the way he ignored her. In Ex.P-6 letter, the respondent wife wrote to the counsel for her husband that she does not believe that her husband could allege that she made his life miserable, treated him with utmost cruelty both physical and mental, even physically beat her eight month old child and attempted to commit suicide and was taken to the doctor and rescued by his efforts. She further says in that letter that she made all efforts to make the matrimonial home comfortable and at no time her husband had any complaint and it was during that period of her stay with him they got their child who was a healthy and growing child with all motherly affection that she had bestowed upon him and she does not propose to say details as to how her husbands parents behaved and why they should be hostile to her except that they had, on several occasions, expressed that marriage gifts to her by her parents and other relatives were meagre and that they could have paid in cash instead of giving any gift in kind and it was they who insisted that the car purchased for her by her parents and given as gift at the marriage was shown to have been purchased in the name of her father in law and other valuable items that were given as marriage gift were immediately appropriated by her in laws and demand for dowry was never stopped and she being the daughter in law of that family was fully devoted to her husband and she never raised even her little finger for all that thy did to her and no daughter in law or wife in a period of 1 1/2 years leaves the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse. She has also stated in Ex.P-6 addressing to the counsel for the appellant that she trusts that he should advise her husband to overcome his lust for the other woman and see that it is the family which is important and not extra marital life. She had asked to treat that letter as a communication from a helpless young lady and not as a reply to the allegations in the notice. Ex.P-6 shows as to how the respondent has devoted to her husband and his family. She has pleaded that only family is important and not extra marital life. The conduct of the respondent goes to establish that she never treated the appellant with cruelty and she never made the life of the appellant miserable. The appellant did not treat her properly. She further says that the petitioner never allotted time to speak with the respondent. 29. On a perusal of the entire material evidence it is clearly seen that there is not even an iota of evidence available to substantiate the case of the appellant. The evidence of R.W.1 and the documentary evidence prove that the respondent/ wife is longing to join her husband the appellant and she wants to join her husband and she is more devoted to her family and her husband and she is longing for the love and affection of her husband. A perusal of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence clearly makes out a case for the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. None of the allegations levelled against the respondent by the appellant and the instances quoted by the appellant goes to establish that the respondent caused physical or mental cruelty on him. 30. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 121 the Supreme Court has held that: “The word “cruelty” has not been defined and could not have 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. There may be causes 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. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be causes 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. There has been a marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, there is a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the Court should not search for standard in life. 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 of 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. The Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import their own notions of life. Judges may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between the Judges and the parties. It would be better if the Judges keep aside their customs and manners. It would be also better if Judges less depend upon precedents. A new dimension has been given to the concept of cruelty. Explanation toSec.498-A provides that any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide would constitute cruelty. Such wilful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical of the woman) would also amount to cruelty. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also constitute cruelty. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also constitute cruelty. The cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage if not admitted requires to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.” In V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 710 the Supreme Court has held that: “Mental cruelty in Sec.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. In other words, mental cruelty must be of 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 every 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 exhaustively. 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 in which they were made.” 31. In the case on hand, a perusal of the evidence establishes that the conduct of the respondent never inflicted upon the appellant any such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for the appellant to live with the respondent. The respondent appears to have never uttered any such words so as to injure the feelings of the appellant and the activities of the respondent were also not of such nature that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The respondent appears to have never uttered any such words so as to injure the feelings of the appellant and the activities of the respondent were also not of such nature that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The conduct of the respondent throughout was obedient loving, polite and she was much interested in the welfare of the family and she was more devoted to the family. Merely asking the husband to take her out while going out and asking him to come and sleep in the bed room and suggesting the name as per her wish to name the child and further according to his wish all these things would not amount to cause cruelty. To cause cruelty, the situation must be such that the appellant cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the respondent. The conduct of the respondent was polite. The letter correspondence shows that she expects only love and affection from her husband which every normal lady would expect from her husband. Such longing for love and affection of the husband and asking the husband to take her out all these things would never amount to act of cruelty. 32. On the other hand, the conduct of the appellant, his close contact with other lady Kavitha and his moving with her so closely and taking her out leaving the wife the respondent is quite unbearable for the respondent. In fact the respondent also did not suspect initially and only afterwards, after coming to know that the appellant was taking her out leaving the respondent, she suspected the conduct of the appellant and asked him. That will not amount to any cruelty. Only the appellant did not behave properly with the respondent as a normal husband would do with his wife. He did not even spare any time to speak with her wife. This also shows his indifferent attitude. He alone acted indifferently leaving the respondent and taking other lady Kavitha out and wandering with her. This was also witnessed by the uncle of the respondent. Under such circumstances, naturally a wife would become humuliative by such behaviour of her husband and even then, the respondent did not appear to have behaved rashly and she simply asked her husband regarding that and that cannot amount to cruelty. 33. This was also witnessed by the uncle of the respondent. Under such circumstances, naturally a wife would become humuliative by such behaviour of her husband and even then, the respondent did not appear to have behaved rashly and she simply asked her husband regarding that and that cannot amount to cruelty. 33. None of the allegations levelled against the respondent for the act of cruelty has been proved. The Family Court analysed all these aspects and rightly dismissed the O.P.No.210 of 1996 for divorce and allowed O.P.No.1075 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights. We see no ground at all to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. 34. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.20298 of 2000 is also dismissed.