TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Principal judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby M. C. No. 63 of 1994 filed by the appellant-wife seeking a decree for divorce has been dismissed. ( 2 ) THE parties are Hindus by faith. They got married to each other on 13-7-1987 at Bangalore and started living with the parents of the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband was at that time working as a teacher in a school drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 350/ -. Having stayed with his parents-in-law for about nine months or so, the couple shifted their residence to Gayathrinagar where they lived together till 1992. During this period, he had given up his job and started his own business in the name of J and J Safety Aids and Marketing Services. Differences having arisen between the parties, they have been living separately ever since the year 1992. M. C. No. 63 of 1994 was in the above background filed by the appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and conversion of the respondent-husband to another religion within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955. The petition enumerated the acts of omission and commission of the respondent-husband on the basis whereof the wife sought a decree for dissolution of marriage. It alleged that after getting married to the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband had lost his job in private establishments twice till he set up his own business. He was during the time he stayed in the house of his parents-in-law behaved rudely with the appellant-wife and her relatives. He would not talk to them and would even suspect the petitioner's character. So much so he did not like her talking to her own brother-in-law who too was living in the same house. He would suggest as though she was having an illicit relationship with him and would always quarrel with and abuse her. He would also say that he was being discriminated against the other son-in-law of the house. He would quarrel with the appellant's sister and had even gone to the extent of assaulting her. His arrival home would invariably be late followed by quarrels on flimsy grounds. The conduct of the respondent-husband notwithstanding the appellant's father would give him money towards bus fare and other expenses. He would quarrel with the appellant's sister and had even gone to the extent of assaulting her. His arrival home would invariably be late followed by quarrels on flimsy grounds. The conduct of the respondent-husband notwithstanding the appellant's father would give him money towards bus fare and other expenses. He would all the same insist that the appellant-wife and her parents should always be submissive to him. He went to the extent of demanding Rs. 25,000/- over and above the amount that was paid to him at the time of the marriage. This he insisted would help him start his business and buy a vehicle. Since the amount could not be arranged by the parents of the appellants, he nursed a grouse against them. He even expected her parents to get a job for him which they could not arrange. Within about six months of the marriage, he started insisting that his parents-in-law should arrange a separate rented accommodation for him by giving an appropriate advance. Then suddenly one day he asked the appellant-wife to leave her parental house at once, brought two autos and forced her to leave in the same immediately without allowing her to take her things to a rented house in Gayathrinagar. He did not allow her to visit her parents' house even once in a while. He threatened that if she or her parents or brothers visit each other, he would break their legs. He prevented her from attending her brother's and sister's marriages and did not attend the same himself. After the brother of the petitioner got married, he started abusing the appellant-wife by saying that she was not good looking whereas the wife of the appellant's brother was good looking. He had a grouse even regarding the manner in which his marriage was celebrated in contrast with the marriage of her brother which was according to him organised on a grand scale with many gifts given to him by his father-in- law. He alleged that since it was difficult for the parents of the appellant to get her married, she had been thrust upon him. He added insult to injury by abusing her and saying that since she did not conceive, she was not a woman. He alleged that since it was difficult for the parents of the appellant to get her married, she had been thrust upon him. He added insult to injury by abusing her and saying that since she did not conceive, she was not a woman. He would say that as she was not good looking, he does not get sexual satisfaction from her and would compare her with a prostitute and find fault with her and would harass her and insist on sexual satisfaction at odd hours. If she protested against this attitude, he would say that he would get another woman for sexual enjoyment. When she joined B. Ed. College as a student, he would enquire about her male classmates and would suspect her having established illicit relationship with them. If she was returning late from her classes, he would make false accusations and scold her. He would indulge in physical violence on flimsy grounds and even when she was laid down with typhoid, he would command her to do household work and satisfy his sexual needs. Since the petitioner had not conceived, he started forcing her to let him bring another wife. This kind of a treatment forced her to leave the house many times, but he would bring her back to re-start the same treatment over again. While she was working in a school as a teacher, the respondent-husband would come near the school and make enquiries about her moral conduct and to keep a watch on her. On 17-7-1993, when she went back to the respondent's house after recovering from her illness, the respondent did not allow her to enter the house forcing her to go back to her parents' house. Some time later, he sent his mother and sister's husband to the appellant's house for signing some divorce papers. This was followed by a legal notice to which she sent a proper reply. In October 1993, she learnt that the respondent was marrying another woman named Ms. Rukmini, D/o. Ramakka, a resident of no. 47, Vinayakanagar, II Cross, Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore. She immediately lodged a complaint with the Subramanyanagar Police Station. The respondent was called to the Police Station where he made a statement that he would not take a second wife. Despite that however he is living with Ms. Rukmini, respondent 2 in adultery. Ms. Rukmini has even conceived from the respondent. 47, Vinayakanagar, II Cross, Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore. She immediately lodged a complaint with the Subramanyanagar Police Station. The respondent was called to the Police Station where he made a statement that he would not take a second wife. Despite that however he is living with Ms. Rukmini, respondent 2 in adultery. Ms. Rukmini has even conceived from the respondent. He has converted to Christianity and bought photographs of Jesus Christ to his house and forced the petitioner also to visit the Church once or twice. He would pray as a christian and upon enquiries was told that the respondent had converted to christianity subsequent to her marriage without her knowledge and consent. ( 3 ) THE objections filed on behalf of the respondent-husband disputed the allegations made against him. He denied that he was behaving rudely with the appellant or suspecting her fidelity. He set up a separate establishment because according to him his parents-in-law did not have either the will or the capacity to secure his future. He alleged that the wife used to abuse and quarrel with him and that on occasions he had to go without food. The allegation that he demanded and received money from his father-in-law was denied by the respondent. It was also denied that any gold chain or other items were presented to him. The allegation that the appellant-wife was not allowed to take her belongings to the new rented house at Gayathrinagar was also denied. It was also denied that the appellant was prevented from visiting her parents' house or that her relatives were threatened with injury when they came to visit her. Allegations of physical and mental abuse were also denied like those suggesting sexual harassment and perversion. It was also denied that the respondent suspected the appellant's fidelity or that he was making enquiries from the school regarding her conduct and character. The allegation that the respondent had married Ms. Rukmini or was living with her in adultery was also denied. The objections went on to state that although the father of the appellant-wife had offered a job to the respondent in Titan Company as an Area Sales Executive, the same was not accepted by the respondent as he was not interested in accepting any favour from either the appellant-wife or her family members. The objections went on to state that although the father of the appellant-wife had offered a job to the respondent in Titan Company as an Area Sales Executive, the same was not accepted by the respondent as he was not interested in accepting any favour from either the appellant-wife or her family members. It was also alleged that the respondent had suggested to the parents of the appellant that the marriage could be postponed for a period of one year, but the appellant's family members compelled the respondent to marry her since the appellant was in love with somebody and was likely to elope with him. It was also alleged that since the appellant was neither good looking nor physically healthy, the chances of her getting married were very bleak. The objections also alleged that the respondent had consented to get married to the appellant on account of the pressure that was brought upon him by the parents of the appellant. It was alleged that the parents of the appellant had misrepresented to the respondent that his parents had also consented to the alliance. It was further alleged that some blank papers were got signed from the respondent by fraudulent means and that once the parents of the respondent had come to know about the marriage, they rushed to Bangalore to protest against the same. After the marriage, the appellant had refused to go to the respondent's native place and her parents refused to send the petitioner-wife to matrimonial home. This forced the respondent to stay with the appellant in her parents' house. The respondent-husband further alleged that the petitioner was sleeping in a different room along with her sister, her brother-in-law and their kids. This was not liked by the respondent, but the appellant-wife refused to comply with the legitimate demand of the respondent. The objections alleged that while the husband was staying with the petitioner-wife and her parents, he was not being looked after or treated properly. He was made to work like a domestic servant to fetch water and vegetables. It was also alleged that the appellant-wife was not at all interested in leading a married life outside her parents' house, she would therefore unnecessarily create problems on flimsy grounds and go back to her parents' house. To save the marriage, a Panchayat was also organised but nothing really worked out. It was also alleged that the appellant-wife was not at all interested in leading a married life outside her parents' house, she would therefore unnecessarily create problems on flimsy grounds and go back to her parents' house. To save the marriage, a Panchayat was also organised but nothing really worked out. It was only once or twice in a month that she would allow him to have sexual intercourse with her and that too unwillingly. She did not allow the respondent to have sex regularly and would never co-operate with him. The objections in the above background prayed for dismissal of the petition. ( 4 ) IN support of their respective versions, the parties appeared as witnesses and stuck to their versions in their respective depositions. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no material to prove that the husband was living in adultery with respondent 2 as alleged by her. On the question of cruelty also, the Trial Court held against the appellant-wife. The finding on the question of conversion of the respondent-husband to Christianity also having gene against the appellant, the petition was dismissed, hence the present appeal. ( 5 ) APPEARING for the appellant Mrs. Hemalata Mahishi fairly conceded that there was no evidence to corroborate the appellant-wife's allegations of adultery and conversion of the husband to Christianity. She submitted that although the appellant had in her deposition made a statement to the effect that the respondent was guilty of adultery and conversion both, yet the said statement stood alone and uncorroborated by any other material or evidence. She did not therefore press her claim for dissolution of the marriage on the said two grounds for want of sufficient evidence. She however strenuously argued that the appellant- wife had made out a case for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. She took us through the depositions of the appellant as also the respondent 1 before the Family Court and urged that the version given by the appellant-wife in regard to the treatment meted out to her was consistent, natural and credible. She took us through the depositions of the appellant as also the respondent 1 before the Family Court and urged that the version given by the appellant-wife in regard to the treatment meted out to her was consistent, natural and credible. She urged that the wife's version regarding what transpired in the matrimonial home of the parties remained unshattered in cross-examination and that the allegations made by the husband in the objections as also the deposition recorded by the family Court would probabilise to a great extent the version set up by the appellant. The appellant was according to the learned Counsel a tormented soul who sees no future for herself with the respondent not only on account of what he has been guilty of but also on account of the persistence with which he makes allegations of misbehaviour against the appellant-wife. ( 6 ) FOR the respondent, it was argued on the other hand that he was ready to accept the appellant back and to lead a normal marital life. It was submitted. that the allegations of cruelty made against the husband remained uncorroborated so that the same could not be made a basis for the dissolution prayed for by the wife. ( 7 ) IN Dr. N. G. Dastane v Mrs. S. Dastane, the Supreme Court was examining the matrimonial ground of cruelty for dissolution of a Hindu marriage. The Court observed that the inquiry in any case falling under that provision had to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. That case involved interpretation of Section 10 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as it stood before the amendment of the Hindu Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1977. Section 10 of the Act as it now exists on the Statute Book entitles either party to a marriage to seek judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act as it now exists on the Statute Book entitles either party to a marriage to seek judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. Cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act and for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act does no longer require the aggrieved spouse to show that the treatment of the offending spouse has caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with the other party. The scope of Section 13 (1) (ia) was considered by the Supreme Court in Shobha Rani v Madhukar reddy. The Court indicated the proper approach in the case of cruelty and reiterated the legal position in that regard. It observed that demand for dowry having been prohibited under law, proof of any demand would by itself entitle the wife to a decree for dissolution without making any enquiry into the injurious effect which the same had on the other spouse. The Court recorded a finding on the cumulative effect of the circumstances appearing in that case that the demand for dowry had been established and even supported by the husband which rendered proof of element of harassment of the wife on that account unnecessary. ( 8 ) TWO aspects need to be emphasised at this stage. The first is that a noticeable change in the notions of matrimonial duties and obligations of husband and wife has taken place in the contemporary world. The result is that the Court dealing with the matrimonial matters has to be careful in seeking any assistance from decisions that have been rendered by the courts from time to time including those that were rendered when the legal position was materially different. The absence of any standards by which to measure the nature and degree of cruelty more often than not requires the Court to judge the matter by reference to the temperament, standard of living, educational qualification and the social milieu in which the parties to the dispute are placed. The absence of any standards by which to measure the nature and degree of cruelty more often than not requires the Court to judge the matter by reference to the temperament, standard of living, educational qualification and the social milieu in which the parties to the dispute are placed. The physical or mental condition of the parties, their age, environment, status in life have to be borne in mind by the Court while determining whether any act or series of acts which the complaining spouse has established in support of his or her case would constitute cruelty. Suffice it to say that it is only by reference to the picture of domestic life of the spouses taken as a whole that a conclusion can be drawn by the Court as to their future relations or reasonable apprehensions or otherwise in their minds. ( 9 ) THE second is that the burden of proof in matrimonial disputes lies on the party who affirms the facts constituting the grounds for grant of the relief prayed for and not the party who denies the same. It is therefore the spouse who has approached the Court for relief to prove that the other spouse has treated him/her with cruelty within the meaning of section 10 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The standard of proof however is not the same as required in criminal prosecutions. The proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act being civil in nature, the relevant facts essential for grant of a decree of divorce must be established by preponderance of probabilities. In Dr. N. G. Dastane's case, supra, the supreme Court declared that neither Section 10 nor Section 23 of the hindu Marriage Act required the petitioner to prove his/her case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed:"neither Section 10 nor Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires that the petitioner must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Section 23 confers on the Court the power to pass a decree if it is 'satisfied' on the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of that Section. Considering that proceedings under the act are essentially of a civil nature the word 'satisfied' must mean satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 23 confers on the Court the power to pass a decree if it is 'satisfied' on the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of that Section. Considering that proceedings under the act are essentially of a civil nature the word 'satisfied' must mean satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The society has a stake in the institution of marriage and therefore the erring spouse is treated not as a mere defaulter but as an offender. But this social philosophy, though it may have a bearing on the need to have the clearest proof of an allegation before it is accepted as ground for the dissolution of marriage, it has no bearing on the standard of proof in matrimonial cases. In England, a view was at one time taken that a petitioner in a matrimonial petition must establish his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt but the House of Lords in Blyth v Blyth, has held the grounds of divorce or the bars to the divorce may be proved by a preponderance of probability. The high Court of Australia has also taken a similar view". ( 10 ) WITH the above introductory remarks, let us now examine whether the appellant-wife has made out a case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The respondent was at the time of his marriage working as a teacher drawing a meager salary of Rs. 350/- per month. The objections filed by him clearly suggest that the marriage proposal made by the parents of the appellant was accompanied by an assurance that the father of the appellant would secure a job for him as an Area Sales Executive in the Titan Company office at Bangalore. The objections further indicate that although the respondent did not wish to contract a marriage immediately, he was compelled by the petitioner's family to do so. The objections go on to state that the said compulsion arose out of an apprehension that the appellant-wife was likely to elope with somebody whom she loved. The objections also show that the respondent-husband does not find the appellant-wife good looking or even physically healthy. The objections go on to state that the said compulsion arose out of an apprehension that the appellant-wife was likely to elope with somebody whom she loved. The objections also show that the respondent-husband does not find the appellant-wife good looking or even physically healthy. Superadded to these averments in the objections, is a specific statement made by the respondent to the effect that the respondent decided to set up a separate establishment for himself, since the parents of the appellant-wife had neither the will nor the capacity to provide for him a bright and comfortable future. He does not even appear to be happy with the frequency of sexual intercourse with the appellant as the objections specifically state that it was only once or twice in a month that the appellant-wife would unwillingly allow him to do so. When the allegations made by the appellant-wife regarding the conduct of the respondent-husband are seen in the light of the above circumstances which emerge from the statement of objections filed by the husband, the same carry a ring of truth. In her deposition, the appellant-wife has described in detail how the conduct of the respondent-husband became intolerable not only because of his expectations from the parents of the appellant insofar as getting him a job and giving him additional dowry was concerned, but also because of his rude and objectionable behaviour. The statement made by her that the respondent demanded Rs. 25,000/- and a scooter as dowry in addition to what had already been given to him in cash and kind at the time of marriage sounds truthful having regard to the fact that the respondent had expected support from the parents of the appellant in material and other terms for making a career for himself. That he expected a job to be arranged by the appellant's father apart from residential accommodation is evident from a bare reading of his objections. That he was disappointed by the parents of the appellant doing nothing for him is also evident for he justifies his setting up a separate home on the ground that the parents of the appellant had neither the will nor the capacity to make a future for him. That he was disappointed by the parents of the appellant doing nothing for him is also evident for he justifies his setting up a separate home on the ground that the parents of the appellant had neither the will nor the capacity to make a future for him. Similarly, the statement made by the appellant- wife that the respondent suspected his fidelity and even suggested the existence of an illicit relationship between her and her brother-in-law gets material support from the statement of the respondent-husband when he says that the appellant was insisting upon sleeping in the very same room in which her sister and her family members were sleeping. The respondent makes a special mention about his protest proving futile in this regard. The respondent has in his statement also made a grievance about the appellant being in the habit of leaving the house in his absence without informing him and going away to her parents' or relatives' houses. This grievance when seen the light of the appellant-wife's case that the respondent has a suspicious temperament and would accuse her of having developed an illicit relationship with her co-employees and even with her own brother-in-law creates an impression that the wife's version regarding the suspicious nature of the husband is truthful. Superadded to all these is the allegation of the wife that the husband used to indulge in sexual perversions and accuse her of not being a woman since she was unable to conceive a child. This version of the wife becomes highly probable because of the defense set up by the husband that she is not good looking and is physically weak and hence may not have found a match for herself. The wife's version that the respondent used to indulge in physical violence and that he has contracted a second marriage with Ms. Rukmini, daughter of Ms. Ramakka and raised children from her are like the proverbial "last straw on the camel's back". Although the Trial Court has come to the conclusion and perhaps rightly so that the charge of a second marriage or an adulterous relationship is not proved for want of evidence, yet the fact remains that the relation between the parties has got so embittered and the marriage broken clown so irretrievably that the chances of the couple coming together have become totally extinct. ( 11 ) THE appellant-wife has taken employment with a school which is doing missionary work in the North-Eastern States. The marital life appears to have proved much too bitter for her to continue suffering the mental and physical torture that it has brought with it. She, it appears has resigned to the thought of living away from Bangalore in a remote and far-flung area of this country only to get some kind of solace in her solitude. In our opinion she deserves that much if not more. Her repulsion for resumption of marital ties with the respondent was evident when we enquired whether she would resume cohabitation if the respondent were to be disciplined and debarred from repeating what he has done in the past. The lack of evidence in proof of the second marriage did not deter her from insisting that the second woman taken by the respondent was even today living with him with her children and that having suffered thus far she was not prepared to suffer any further. Suffice it to say that upon a close and careful evaluation of the version given by the parties, we are inclined to accept the one given by the wife that the respondent has treated her with cruelty. Even if one were to leave a margin for the ordinary wear and tear of married life and ignore certain incidents that could be treated to be a part of every matrimony, we cannot persuade ourselves to hold that the demand of dowry by the husband, his false allegations of infidelity against the wife, physical violence and acts showing sexual perversion did not constitute cruelty so as to entitle the wife to claim dissolution of marriage. ( 12 ) WE accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order impugned and by a decree of divorce dissolve the marriage between the parties with immediate effect under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Since the appellant-wife has not made any claim for alimony in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, we make no orders in that regard except that the appellant shall if so advised be free to make a claim for permanent alimony in terms of section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by filing an appropriate application in that regard. No costs. --- *** --- .