SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HERE is yet another failed marriage and a separated couple. Matrimonial bond has not worked for them. On the other hand, what should have been a happy union, has resulted in a painful and bitter experience, more so for the wife, who complains that she has been harassed to the hilt leading to her filing a petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty on the part of her husband. The Family Court having dismissed the petition, the petitioner-wife, undaunted by the failure, has pursued her effort to get out of the matrimonial bond by presenting this appeal. ( 2 ) THE brief admitted facts are that the petitioner-wife and her parents are from Hyderabad while the respon-dent and his parents are residents of Bangalore; that pursuant to negotiations amongst the elders, the couple were united in matrimony with the marriage taking place at Bangalore on 27. 2. 1997; that thereafter, as per the petitioner-wifes version, she had to suffer misery, pain and sorrow due to the continuous harassment and bickering she was subjected to by the parents of the respondent husband, his sisters other relatives and the respondent. ( 3 ) AS per the petition averment, such harassment and mal-treatment not only to the petitioner but also to her parents started even at the marriage house itself and she has been the target of continued slinging attacks on herself and on her parents by the parents and sisters of the respondent-husband directly and indirectly by the respondent also as he always supported his parents and sisters and on occasions also joined them increasing the agony and misery of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petition averments go on to give a very detailed version of events that took place at the time of the marriage and later at the residence of the petitioners husband. ( 4 ) THE petition averments go on to give a very detailed version of events that took place at the time of the marriage and later at the residence of the petitioners husband. The incidents narrated indicated that the petitioner herself was subjected to constant physical abuses, her parents were ridiculed and described as persons unworthy of any level or match to the parents of the respondent-husband; that the petitioner was even deprived of basic needs on many occasions; that she was deprived of her freedom totally; that she was virtually kept in imprisonment in the house and such cruel treatment meted out to her made her sneak away from her marital home and the pain, pressure and the tension created by such conduct on the part of the respondent and his people caused such mental agony to the petitioner, that she suffered a miscarriage and is now forced to seek shelter in her parents home. ( 5 ) THE petition was contested. The defence was one of total denial of all the allegations. The respondent-husband pleaded that he has taken good care of his wife; that he has always treated her with love and affection; that he has been kind to her; that his parents are equally kind to her; that his sisters, if at all have been helpful and supporting the petitioner; that they had never caused any suffering or harassment to the petitioner; that the husband and his family being all very classy people and his family comprised of only cultured and educated people and always conducted in a manner befitting of their high status in the society and the entire petition averments were denied as false and fictitious. The husband prayed for dismissal of the petition. ( 6 ) THE wife had sought for dissolution of the marriage and a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of her husband. This was the only issue that arose before the Trial Court in the context of the rival pleas. The issue was as to whether the husband had treated the wife with cruelty and as a consequence the wife was entitled for dissolution of the marriage and a decree for divorce. The petitioner, apart from examining herself, examined her mother as the other supporting witness in support of her version. The respondent examined himself. The issue was as to whether the husband had treated the wife with cruelty and as a consequence the wife was entitled for dissolution of the marriage and a decree for divorce. The petitioner, apart from examining herself, examined her mother as the other supporting witness in support of her version. The respondent examined himself. ( 7 ) THE other unpleasant development in between is that the wife had lodged a complaint on 2. 7. 1997 with the police accusing the husband and his parents of making a demand for dowry and harassment against the petitioner. This complaint which was tried as C. C. 4667/97 by the jurisdic-tional Court was ultimately dismissed as per order dated 13. 12. 2000 and the accused were acquitted. The husband also had lodged a complaint on 13. 1. 1998 accusing the wife of cheating and misrepresentation on the allegation that she had misled the respondent-husband and his people that she had resigned her job with M/s. Jet Airlines before their marriage as had been agreed between the parties but actually not so resigned and further she had illegally got herself aborted even without any intimation or consent from her husband. In respect of this complaint, the police had filed a B report and the report has been challenged by the husband by filing his objection to the same. ( 8 ) THE Trial Court, on examination of the oral evidence of the parties and the witnesses and also on examination of the documentary evidence which was in the form of Exs. Pl and P2 on the part of the petitioner-wife and Exs. R1 to R69 produced by the respondent-husband, was of the view that the petitioner had failed to make home her ground that the respondent - husband had treated her with cruelty and as a consequence she had to leave the husband, and concluded that she was not entitled for seeking a decree of divorce and consequently dismissed the petition. R1 to R69 produced by the respondent-husband, was of the view that the petitioner had failed to make home her ground that the respondent - husband had treated her with cruelty and as a consequence she had to leave the husband, and concluded that she was not entitled for seeking a decree of divorce and consequently dismissed the petition. The learned Trial Judge has made an observation that even assuming the respondent and his parents had rebuked the petitioner in the early days of the married life of the petitioner, that in itself does not amount to cruelty and minor lapses on the part of the parties to the marriage and small irritants cannot constitute cruelty more so when the respondent had been acquitted of the allegations made against him by the Criminal Court. The learned Trial Judge in this background also expressed the pious hope that the parties should realise their own drawbacks, forgive the lapses on the part of the other party and live together as husband and wife. With this ardent wish, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. ( 9 ) WE have heard Sri. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri. L. S. Venkatakrishna learned Counsel for the respondent. We have been taken through the judgment of the Family Court and perused the records. ( 10 ) FOR the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties by their rank in the Trial Court. ( 11 ) MR. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the petition averments, read with the supporting evidence clearly indicate that the wife was subjected to treatment of harassment and taunted insinuations. The respondent and his parents also pursued a continuous tirade against the parents of the petitioner and made her life miserable, by time and again accusing that her parents were not people of status or culture or upbringing to match the parents of the respondent-husband. They were mis-fits to develop any relationship, particularly with an accomplished family like that of the husband and that it was a mere accident or a mistake that they had developed the relationship. The version of the petitioner-wife clearly proved by the attitude exhibited by the respondent from the line of cross-examination adopted on behalf of the respondent while the petitioner and her mother were deposing in the witness box. The version of the petitioner-wife clearly proved by the attitude exhibited by the respondent from the line of cross-examination adopted on behalf of the respondent while the petitioner and her mother were deposing in the witness box. Learned Counsel further submits that the totality of the circumstances and a reading of the petition and the deposition clearly indicate that the conduct and attitude on the part of the respondent-husband and his plea clearly amounted to practising cruelty against the wife inasmuch as they not only started with quarrels, abuses and allegations from the very beginning of the marriage, but continued with the same attitude even for the period of about four to five months of the stay of the petitioner in the matrimonial home; made her life miserable more and more as days passed, curtailed her freedom totally, made her feel like a slave in the house, tried to cut all her links with her parents and drove her to such desperation that she had to virtually run away from the house. Mr. Patil submits that such conduct on the part of the husband and his parents and sisters clearly amounted to treating the petitioner with cruelty and relies upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of this position: - 1) AIR 2002 SC 2582 -PRA VEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA = (2002) 5 SCC 706 2) (2002) 2 SCC 296 -G. V. N. KAMESWARA RAO VS. G. JABILLI ( 12 ) MR. Patil has also relied upon (1988) 1 SCC 105 (SHOBHA RANI vs. MADHUKAR REDDI ). Mr. Patil, particularly relying upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Shobha Ranis case submits that what constitutes cruelty in a given case is to be assessed from the facts and circumstances of that case and the conduct of the parties also will have to be viewed in the background of their upbringing, social status, values in life, standard of living that they are accustomed to and the kind of interaction they have in their society. In such matters there is no set norms or standardized conduct with which the existence of cruelty can be measured or detected in all cases, cruelty also being either mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. In so far as mental cruelty is concerned, it is a matter to be inferred from the circumstances. In such matters there is no set norms or standardized conduct with which the existence of cruelty can be measured or detected in all cases, cruelty also being either mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. In so far as mental cruelty is concerned, it is a matter to be inferred from the circumstances. It is also to be perceived from the angle of the person who has suffered the same and as to whether the conduct of the other spouse constituted such cruelty to the sufferer. Intention being not a necessary element in cruelty, the mere plea or even a bona fide plea and perception on the part of the other spouse that he or she had not acted with cruelty in itself will not conclude the matter inasmuch as if the person suffering had in fact been subjected to such treatment as would constitute cruelty by making a persons life miserable and even by creating an apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse, it can undoubtedly be described as the person being subjected to cruelty. In such cases, the conduct on the part of the person against whom the relief is sought for may not be perse illegal or unlawful, but it may be nevertheless such as to create reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other spouse as to make his or her life miserable and result in cruelty. Mr. Patil submits in this regard that the mere fact the complaint against the husband ended in acquittal on the criminal side, is not either relevant or conclusive of the issue before the Matrimonial court and the learned Trial Judge has erred in approaching the case in the context of the result of the criminal proceedings which has influenced the decision of the Court. Mr. Patil submits that the petitioner apprehended and suffered enormously and wants to be just relieved and liberated from such a situation and that she was not willing to have any further association with the respondent. ( 13 ) SRI. Mr. Patil submits that the petitioner apprehended and suffered enormously and wants to be just relieved and liberated from such a situation and that she was not willing to have any further association with the respondent. ( 13 ) SRI. L. S. Venkatakrishna, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent husband on the other hand submits that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of cruelty against the husband that the petitioner had not been able to point out any particular act attributable to the respon dent- husband which can be termed as an act of cruelty. Learned Counsel also submits that in fact, a very reading of the statement of objections indicates that the respondent had not even accused the petitioner of any misdeeds or wrongful acts and on the other hand, the statement of objections is only one of mere denial of the allegations made against the husband. Learned Counsel also submitted that it was the design of the petitioner-wife, just to hijack the respondent husband who is very well placed in society and has a very decent earning from out of the family and having failed in her attempts to do so, has come up with the petition for divorce making all sorts of allegations. Sri. Venkatakrishna further submits that even assuming that there were some differences and skirmishes during the marriage and in the early days of the marriage and a few comments made here and there either by the parents or sisters of the respondent husband, they should all be taken to be as part of the normal wear and tear attributable to a married life and that in itself cannot be made a ground for dissolution of the marriage holding that it is an act of cruelty. The learned Counsel further submits that in fact there are no serious differences between the couple and that the husband was even now ready to take back the wife and resume their marital life. The learned Counsel further submits that in fact there are no serious differences between the couple and that the husband was even now ready to take back the wife and resume their marital life. ( 14 ) THOUGH parties were present before the Court and the husband in fact did make an offer of this nature, he has also indicated that he is not prepared to agree or allow the petitioner to have the relief of dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce as he would not like to be called as a divorcee and as to why he should be given such a tag when he is not at fault. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife however is quick to point out that the offer is not bona fide; that in fact it is a calculated mischievous offer made at this point of time just to ensure that the petitioner-wife does not get any relief and this is further demonstrated by the conduct of the respondent,- husband who had been posed the very question by the learned Trial Judge while the respondent-husband was deposing and to such pointed question the respondent husband had only answered that he would like to consult his Advocate before answering the question as to whether he was prepared to take back his wife. Learned Counsel for the appellant therefore submits that such an offer given at this point of time is only as an after thought and the respondent acting wise having realised the mistake he committed earlier and that the offer was not either bona fide or a genuine offer. ( 16 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our determination is as to whether the learned Trial Judge was right in dismissing the petition by rendering a finding that the wife was unable to prove any act of cruelty against her on the part of her husband and/or whether the said finding calls for our interference. ( 17 ) CRUELTY is not a term defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty on the part of one of the spouses constitutes a reasonable ground to the other spouse to seek for relief from matrimonial bondage. ( 17 ) CRUELTY is not a term defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty on the part of one of the spouses constitutes a reasonable ground to the other spouse to seek for relief from matrimonial bondage. When a marriage fails, what could have been matrimonial bliss by the union of two persons turns out to be a painful burden and the matrimonial knot becomes an oppressive bond. The reason why cruelty is not defined is that it is an aspect which has to be assessed or inferred in the context of a given case having regard to the conduct and relationship between the parties. Human conduct and behaviour differs from person to person and acts of cruelty are as a result of such conduct and attitudes which is variable from person to person. As noted earlier, there is no standardization of the concept of cruelty which is like it is not possible to say who is an ideal spouse or an ideal couple. As Honble Mr. Justice Chandrachud J observed in N. G. DASTANE VS. S. DASTANE AIR 1975 SC 1532. The case came up before the Court not in the context of an ideal husband or an ideal wife which in itself, learned Judge indicates, to be a misnomer, but in the context of a deficient conduct noticed by one spouse on the other. The learned Judge has also observed that there may not be any occasion for an ideal couple to approach the Court at all even assuming that they have certain differences as they may overlook or realise their mutual faults and deficiencies and reconcile to such faults and deficiencies and may still carry on their lives by looking at the brighter aspects of their life. It is only when a spouse is disillusioned or sees darkness in the matrimonial house, the spouse is compelled to approach the Courts for relief. ( 18 ) IN our society people generally are by and large weary of approaching courts for relief and more so in matrimonial matters. For every case that may come up before the Court there could be hundreds of other couples who also might have been dissatisfied with one another but nevertheless carry on. ( 19 ) WE are also constrained to observe that in. For every case that may come up before the Court there could be hundreds of other couples who also might have been dissatisfied with one another but nevertheless carry on. ( 19 ) WE are also constrained to observe that in. the very institution of marriage as established and practised in our society, there is an initial element of cruelty built in against the wife in the very system. Traditionally the wife joins the husbands home. A person who has been accustomed to a particular environment who had enjoyed all freedom and love and affection in her parents house is all of a sudden severed of her roots and planted into a totally different atmosphere, an atmosphere which hitherto was not familiar an atmosphere comprising of strangers and more often than not an atmosphere wherein people look down on the new entrant with doubt and scepticism. Added to this is the traditional concepts or perception that a mother-in-law has to boss over/dominate and control the daughter-in-law; that a daughter-in-law enters the house only to render service to the house-holders; that she has no say in the family matters and that she should remain a faithful wife of the husband and a dutiful daughter-in-law to the house by being obedient, sub-servant and attend to the needs of her family. Until and unless the lady is of strong character and understanding bent of mind, the person can be of weathering unpleasantness, shocks and even humiliations, the experience cannot be said to be totally pleasant or enjoyable. Even if the in-laws and the husband remain neutral, the initially built in cruelty of the system continues to operate against the daughter in-law. If the parents-in-law are not caring and understanding and on the other hand start dictating terms and hurling abuses, it only aggravates the situation and the cruelty increases. Until and unless the husband is supportive and tries to alleviate the situation and reassuring to the wife, her agony continues and goes on increasing. It is only when all the members of the family to which the wife enters are understanding, treat her with love and affection that the wife can lead a happy and satisfied life in the matrimo- nial house. The truth of the matter is that the dice is loaded against the wife. It is only when all the members of the family to which the wife enters are understanding, treat her with love and affection that the wife can lead a happy and satisfied life in the matrimo- nial house. The truth of the matter is that the dice is loaded against the wife. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, the petition averments indicate that from the very beginning of the marriage, the respondent and his people have been hurling abuses, wise pranks against the petitioner wife and her parents and her relatives. The respondent and his people have eversince shown an attitude of superior class, that they have continued to accuse the parents of the petitioner wife of not performing the marriage to their expectations and befitting their standards; that they are people not worthy of having a relationship with the respondents family and have always ill-treated not only the petitioner, but also her parents and other relatives. If the instances narrated in the petition are to be believed, they do not really speak well of the attitude or the behaviour of the respondent and his parents, but only exposes them in poor light. Even the way the petitioners parents were treated later by the respondent and his parents when the petitioners parents had visited them at the house of her husband, also indicates the biased and uneven treatment meted out by the respondents people. These versions are corroborated by the evidence of the petitioner herself and her mother. The incidents which the petitioner has narrated in the petition, said to have taken place during the second week of June, 1997 which ultimately led to the petitioner leaving or virtually fleeing from the matrimonial house as on 1. 7. 1997 fearing for her safety and well-being and in a state of desperation, narrates vividly the kind of treatment that she received from the respondent and his parents and sisters while she was in the matrimonial house. The fact that the petitioner had conceived at that time and was in need of greater love and affection, looked up to a pleasant and supportive atmosphere at that time but only received harsh treatment and an hostile atmosphere, only heightened her desperation and suffering and leading to abandoning her house and running away from the matrimonial home on the 1st July, 1997. The develop-ments are in the context of the wife going out to attend the Upanayana function of the son of her uncle where she had occasion to meet her parents, who had come from Hyderabad and to whom she had narrated her sufferings in her husbands place and the kind of harassment that she had been subjected to by her in-laws -parents and sisters of her husband and the husband either being a passive spectator or even joining them on occasions. When the parents of the petitioner-wife had come to her husbands house on 29. 6. 1997 to speak to her husband and in-laws and to request them to send their daughter to Hyderabad, they were virtually not only ill- treated, but practically thrown out of the house. The respondent in fact forcibly took the petitioner inside and took her away to a nearby club rather than allowing her to spend time with her parents. If the version of the wife is to be believed, the husband went to the extent of saying that if he were to be in the position of his parents, he would have kicked out the respondent s parents whereas on the other hand his father had only asked them to get out of the house. The husband also has told the wife, according to her version, that he was prepared to beat her parents but they escaped as he received a phone call in the meanwhile. The treatment given to the petitioner-wife on this occasion, that she was not given food, was made to stand as punishment for three hours during which time the mother-in- law went on hurling abuses against her and her parents and also alleged that her parents had not given car and cash to their son- in-law and have insulted him by not doing so and that though there were many other matrimonial offers, she had been selected because of the assurance on the part of her parents that they would provide car and cash to her husband befitting his status. The version is that the respondents father also joined in this abusing spree against the petitioner and her parents and that she was also told not to contact her parents or relatives any more and they are all practically dead for her from then on wards. The version is that the respondents father also joined in this abusing spree against the petitioner and her parents and that she was also told not to contact her parents or relatives any more and they are all practically dead for her from then on wards. The wife has deposed that they also threatened her that if she should have any contact henceforth that she would also be thrown out. She has narrated that she was asked to go up and remain there and should not come down without being allowed to come down and that the respondent-husband was not at home at that time though he returned to the house in the evening no one came to talk to her until 9 P. M. and she was not allowed to eat anything and she was forced to drink water from the bathroom tap. She has also deposed that she was in a depressed state of mind and thought of consuming a pesticide that was in the bathroom but she could not do that as a servant maid was posted to keep a watch over her. She was kept in the same state the whole night and it was only the next day morning at 9 A. M. , the respondent husband came to the room, but still did not speak to her and when the petitioner-wife told him that she could not possibly live in such an atmosphere, he had told her to go and narrate it to his mother and called his mother and told her about what the wife was saying. This enraged the mother-in-law and she started abusing in filthy language and respondent also started throwing away things which drove the petitioner to a sense of desperation and helplessness and left her in a state of shock and fear. The respondent-husband instructed her to remain on the ground floor and went away to his office. She was not provided food for that day also and that it was in such circumstances that at about 12. 30 P. M. , she managed to escape from the house from the back door fearing for her life and took an autorickshaw and landed at her uncles house. She narrated the incident to her parents, who were still in her uncles house and stayed in her uncles house for the day. 30 P. M. , she managed to escape from the house from the back door fearing for her life and took an autorickshaw and landed at her uncles house. She narrated the incident to her parents, who were still in her uncles house and stayed in her uncles house for the day. The respondent and his people, coming to know of her stay there, had abused and threatened the petitioner and her parents that he can deal with them sternly as they knew higher police officers and the respondents father and sisters themselves being Advocates. She has also deposed that her husband even contacted her father employer at Hyderabad and spoke ill about his father with him. It was on the next day that the petitioner went to Tilaknagar Police Station and lodged a complaint against the respondent. She has also deposed that all these harassment and tension resulted in miscarriage of her pregnancy as she had to be hospitalised on 4th July and the doctors informed that the severe stomach pain and bleeding she experienced was due to the miscarriage she had suffered. She has stated that she resided at Bangalore for 2- 5 days and thereafter went with her parents to Hyderabad. Eversince she has been living with her parents. The respondent-husband, on the other hand, had continued to harass her parents even white at Hyderabad by calling them over the phone and threatening them. She has also deposed that on 13. 1. 1998, the respondent husband had filed a false complaint against her and her parents to pressurise them to withdraw the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The petitioner-wife has also deposed that she rejoined and started working with Jet Airlines where she was working earlier and even at her work place, she was harassed by respondent-husband falsely informing her employer that she was required to be sent to Bangalore in connection with a police case and as though the request was communicated by a Police Officer. The petitioner- wife has stated that these circumstances clearly indicated that the respondent husband was not keen to live with her. He has only harassed her all along and also abetted such harassment on the part of his parents and sisters. The petitioner- wife has stated that these circumstances clearly indicated that the respondent husband was not keen to live with her. He has only harassed her all along and also abetted such harassment on the part of his parents and sisters. ( 21 ) THE mother of the petitioner has also deposed about the harassment that they received at the hands of the respondent and his parents not only at the time of the marriage, but also thereafter and during the visit to their house. The line of cross- examination against petitioners mother while she was in the box is only to suggest that these incidents did not take place and to elicit from the petitioner that she had not actually resigned from Jet Airlines as was required of her, but had continued with her job and misrepresented about it to the respondent-husband and his people. That she had been asked to resign so that she can qualify herself for a better job. It was also suggested to her that the parents of respondents husband had extended the maximum co-operation at the time of the marriage only because the petitioners parents were not familiar with people and facilities at Bangalore as they were from Hyderabad and had put up with all deficiencies on the part of the respondents parents. It is also suggested that in fact it is the respondents father who had made all arrangements for the marriage and had helped the petitioners parents in this regard. It is also suggested that the petitioner and her parents had developed a sort of inferiority complex, as they could not adapt to the high standard of living of the respondent and his people. It is also suggested that she had not been deprived of her freedom or the facility to contact her parents over the phone as deposed by her. It was also suggested that she had demanded to set up a separate residence and as the respondent did not heed to this, she had filed the petition for divorce making false accusations. It is also suggested during the petitioners cross-examination that she had taken away most of her jewellery and clothes worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- on 29. 6. 1997. It was also suggested that she had demanded to set up a separate residence and as the respondent did not heed to this, she had filed the petition for divorce making false accusations. It is also suggested during the petitioners cross-examination that she had taken away most of her jewellery and clothes worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- on 29. 6. 1997. She has denied the suggestion that she had been given nourishing food, rest and co-operation and was kept in a very congenial atmosphere during the early stages of her pregnancy and that she was being taken to the doctor regularly for medical treatment and check-up. It is also elicited in her cross-examination that the respondent - husband had demanded dowry of Rs. 25,000/- and a car at the time of marriage and that he was given only cash of Rs. 25,000/- but the car had not been given. She has denied the suggestion that there was no such demand on the part of the respondent- husband. ( 22 ) THE evidence of the petitioners mother indicates that they had spent considerable amount for the marriage of their daughter at Bangalore which was performed for nearly three days; that it was an arranged marriage; the rent of the choultry itself was Rs. 55,000/- per day and inspite of incurring this huge expenditure on the marriage, the respondent-husband, his parents and sisters were not at all happy and started expressing their unhappi-ness. They accused them of shortcom-ings at every stage and even started quarrelling with them; that though the respondents people had agreed to send the couple to Hyderabad so that a reception can be arranged there in connection with the marriage, they did not allow either the petitioner or her husband to go to Hyderabad and as such the reception could not be performed at Hyderabad. Apart from the oppressive behaviour on the part of the respondent and his parents at the time of the marriage, she has also spoken about the ill-treatment that she and her husband had received when they had visited the respondents home. Apart from the oppressive behaviour on the part of the respondent and his parents at the time of the marriage, she has also spoken about the ill-treatment that she and her husband had received when they had visited the respondents home. She has deposed that they came to know of an injury sustained by her daughter in the month of May, 1997 as she had fallen from the stair-case and had injured her back bone and in that connection had come to Bangalore to visit her and also requested at that time to send their daughter to Hyderabad as she was to recoup from her injury and as Ashada month was also approa-ching. This request was turned down by the respondent and his people. She has also narrated about their coming to Bangalore again in connection with the Upanayanam of her sisters son on the 28th of August 1997 and about the horrowing experience narrated by her daughter in her husbands place when her daughter met her at the Upanaya-nam function. It was in this connection that she had visited the respondents house at about 6 P. M. on 29. 6. 1997 along with her husband, brother-in-law and his son. She has stated that they were accused and called as liars and cheaters at that time and that unless they leave the house, they will be kicked out. The respondent, who was not at home when all these things happened, arrived on the scene at that time and as per P. W. 2, he also told that if he were to be in the position of his father, he would have kicked them out of the house and it is better that they leave by themselves. She has also deposed that when she tried to pacify and tell them about her daughter, they told them to shut up and get out of the house. The respondent and his parents also told her and her people that their relationship was over once the marriage is performed and there is no need for them to contact them either over phone or in person and not to write any letter or any such thing thereafter. When the petitioner started weeping due to these developments, the respondent dragged her inside the house and they were made to go. When the petitioner started weeping due to these developments, the respondent dragged her inside the house and they were made to go. She has also narrated that their daughter came by autorickshaw the next day and she was not even wearing chappals and had come in the very dress which she was wearing at home and she was in a state of mental shock and fear. She had narrated her experience of previous day and the version of this witness supports the version of the petitioner. She has also stated that it was the respondent who had cheated them as he had represented to them that he was 28 years of age at the time of marriage, but actually was 40 years. She has also expressed apprehension of danger to her daughters life if she should return to the matrimonial house. She has denied the suggestion that the petitioner really did not suffer any miscarriage as on 4. 7. 1997 and that Ex. P3 evidencing the same is a cooked up document. The other line of cross-examination is only to suggest that they had messed up in the performance of marriage, that it was not befitting the status and reputation of respondent and his people and that she is deposing falsehood only to support the case of the petitioner. ( 23 ) THE respondent husband in his deposition has said that their marriage was an arranged marriage; that they are all residing in a house owned by his father; that he was working as a General Manager in Air Linkers drawing a salary of more than Rs. ( 23 ) THE respondent husband in his deposition has said that their marriage was an arranged marriage; that they are all residing in a house owned by his father; that he was working as a General Manager in Air Linkers drawing a salary of more than Rs. 25,000/- per month; he owns two Maruthi Omni vans given by his company; that the owner of the choultry where their marriage was performed was a client of their father and as such his father booked the choultry for three days and his father had also arranged for a cook at the marriage; that no noticeable untoward incident had taken place at the time of the marriage except that the reception started a little late as the petitioners parents had defaulted in making payment to the beautician at the beauty saloon where the petitioner had been taken for make, up; that he had been rudely shocked on coming to know that his wife had lodged a complaint with the Tilaknagar police against himself and his people under Section 498-A IPC for dowry harassment when the police gave him a call and informed him about the same; that the petitioners uncle Mr. Sudhi, using his contact and influence with one Sri. S. M. R. Adiga, Superintendent of Police, has caused the complaint to be registered and was egging on the police to arrest him at the Police Station and though the Police filed the charge sheet against him, his parents and sisters, the case resulted inacquittal; that he had never demanded any dowry from the petitioner, but on the other hand, it was the petitioner who had demanded to set up a separate house and when he refused to yield to the demand, the petitioner and her people have created problems for him. He has also deposed that he has the responsibility of taking care of his aged parents and unmarried sisters and had indicated that it was not possible for him to set up a separate house. He has also said that the petitioner who left the matrimonial house as on 29. 6. 1997 had never returned thereafter; that at the time of her leaving the house, she was pregnant by two months and also that his mother was taking good care of his wife by taking her to Dr. Hema Diwakar, a reputed gynaecologist. He has also said that the petitioner who left the matrimonial house as on 29. 6. 1997 had never returned thereafter; that at the time of her leaving the house, she was pregnant by two months and also that his mother was taking good care of his wife by taking her to Dr. Hema Diwakar, a reputed gynaecologist. In his cross-examination he has indicated that he had got issued a legal notice on 10. 1. 1998 permitting three days time to the petitioner to reply to that notice and that it was on 13. 1. 1998 he filed a police complaint before the Tilaknagar Police accusing the petitioner and her parents of cheating and misrepresentation. He has denied a suggestion that on account of a false complaint filed against the petitioner alleging illegal abortion and on account of ill- treatment that she received at his house, she is unable to continue with the marital relationship with him. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say anything to the question that he will not suffer any hardship in case the petitioner is granted divorce. On being questioned as to whether he is prepared to take back his wife, his reply is that he cannot say whether he is ready to take her back or not before consulting his Advocate and also that he cannot indicate as to within what time he can respond to this offer of accepting the petitioner to his house. ( 24 ) WHILE the case set up and the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner itself indicate the kind of harassment and ill-treatment that the petitioner received at the hands of the respondent and his people to the extent of driving her to desperation and running away from the matrimonial house fearing for her life, the defence on the part of the respondent- husband is one of total denial of this version and suggesting that the petitioner had come up with a false case as she did not succeed in her design to wean away the respondent from his parents and failed in her attempt to have a separate residence set up for them. While the petitioners version is supported by her mother in the witness box, the respondent has only supported himself in his defence. While the petitioners version is supported by her mother in the witness box, the respondent has only supported himself in his defence. The other fact is about the criminal complaints lodged by the parties and the outcome of these complaints. The question is as to whether the petitioners version and the evidence in support of her version is to be believed and if so believed, whether it indicates any act of cruelty on the part of the respondent as against the wife. The petition averments and the supporting evidence is quite vivid and descriptive and there is nothing unnatural or unusual in it. The incident is within a span of five months after the marriage. An experience within such a short duration, has driven the wife to the extreme step of filing a petition for divorce notwithstanding an affluent and well-endowed husband. Obviously there should be something radically wrong at the matrimonial house driving the wife to such an extreme step. What is wrong or amiss is clearly narrated by the petitioner and on behalf of the petitioner. It is too much to accept the version of the respondent that all these things are fabricated and only for the reason that the respondent did not accede to the demand of the wife to set up a separate residence. ( 25 ) ON an overall consideration of the evidence on record, it becomes clear that the attitude on the part of the respondent is one of denial and non-involvement and at the best that the things happened on their own and that it was not intended on the part of the respondent. ( 26 ) THE petition averments when read with the evidence in support of the same led by the petitioner clearly indicate the continuous and constant harassment caused to the petitioner throughout her stay in the matrimonial house. If one were to believe the testimony of the petitioner and her mother, it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was virtually treated like a slave in the house. She was denied of even basic needs like proper food or rest. She was also denied of her freedom of movement and her desire to contact her parents and her relatives and to top this, the continuous tirade against the petitioner and her parents saying that they were not people commensurate to the standards of the respondent and his family. She was denied of even basic needs like proper food or rest. She was also denied of her freedom of movement and her desire to contact her parents and her relatives and to top this, the continuous tirade against the petitioner and her parents saying that they were not people commensurate to the standards of the respondent and his family. Though the criminal case in the context of demand for dowry resulted in acquittal and is relied upon much by the respondent, the acquittal in a criminal trial is not a clinching evidence in the matter of proving harassment constituting cruelty for the purpose of dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act. It is not necessary that the dowry demand should be direct and by the respondent himself. The evidence indicates that the mother-in-law of the petitioner had consistently abused the petitioner that the marriage was not celebrated in a grand manner befitting their status; that it did not bring her son sufficient cash and not even a car and that there were any number of other matrimonial alliances that were available to the petitioners husband with such offers and selecting the petitioner had deprived him of all these. The mother-in-law has tainted the petitioner and her parents as people of no means and not cultured or elite. This attitude has continued all along. The respondent-husband who is himself aware either kept silent or supported his mother and sister on occasions and never tried to prevent such harassment to the petitioner. At the best, the attitude appears to be you take care of yourself. It is in this background that the mere denial in itself on the part of the respondent, will not conclude the matter one way or the other as found by the learned Trial Judge. The version of the respondent husband that the petitioner has come up with the petition only because of her attempts to have a separate residence set up for themselves failed, assumes considerable importance in this background. In an oppressive and suffocating atmosphere that prevailed in the matrimonial house if the petitioner-wife had suggested to her husband that they can have a separate residence and live in peace, it can only be an indication for having respite from the harassment that she was being subjected to and to lead a normal marital life. In an oppressive and suffocating atmosphere that prevailed in the matrimonial house if the petitioner-wife had suggested to her husband that they can have a separate residence and live in peace, it can only be an indication for having respite from the harassment that she was being subjected to and to lead a normal marital life. Definitely it cannot be termed as a conspiracy. The husband on his part, assuming that he is not willing to have a separate residence for justifiable reasons from his angle, atleast should have ensured that the harassment to his wife was prevented and that she was allowed to live like a normal human being in the house. The husband did not help at all in this regard but remained a mute spectator. It should be remembered that the wife joined the matrimonial home only because of her husband and it is because of his stay in the house that she is also compelled to stay in that very house. It is the duty of the husband to ensure that the wife has the facilities for living as a normal human being and she is taken proper care. It is obvious that the respondent has failed in this regard. ( 27 ) WE also find no reason at all to disbelieve the version of the petitioner and we are also not inclined to go to the extent of characterising the entire version as a figment of imagination as is sought to be projected by the respondent and by his learned Counsel. The natural desire and ambition of every wife is to lead a happy married life with her husband and she herself would not wreck a marriage just because her intention to have a separate residence did not work. The petition averments and the supporting evidence is not either false or concocted as is suggested by the respondent and accepted by the Trial Court, but is an indication of the frustration and harassment suffered by the petitioner- wife at the matrimonial house. In our opinion, this clearly constitutes cruelty. It is not necessary that the husband intentionally caused such cruelty to the wife. The net result of the conduct of the respondent-husband, his parents and sisters did definitely amount to the wife being treated with cruelty. In our opinion, this clearly constitutes cruelty. It is not necessary that the husband intentionally caused such cruelty to the wife. The net result of the conduct of the respondent-husband, his parents and sisters did definitely amount to the wife being treated with cruelty. It is relevant to recapitulate the wise words sounded by the Supreme Court in Shobha Ranis case (1988) 1 SCC 105 . The Supreme Court had occasion to examine several aspects of the word cruelty in this case. The effect of acquittal in a criminal case has also been discussed. We may usefully quote the same as under: - 4. Section 13 (1) (i-a) uses the words treated the petitioner with cruelty. The word cruelty has not been defined. Indeed it 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. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is 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 on 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. 5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. 5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find 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 stigmatised 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. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon the categories of cruelty are not closed. Each case may be different. WE deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. 6. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasize that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins in matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman ). We are dealing with this man or this woman. 16. This is not a case where the husband requested his wife to give some money for his personal expenses. The High Court appears to have misunderstood the case. It has evidently proceeded on a wrong basis. We are dealing with this man or this woman. 16. This is not a case where the husband requested his wife to give some money for his personal expenses. The High Court appears to have misunderstood the case. It has evidently proceeded on a wrong basis. It proceeded on the ground that the husband wanted some money from his wife for his personal expenses. If the demand was only of such nature we would have thrown this appeal away. The wife must extend all help to husband and so too the husband to wife. They are partners in life. They must equally share happiness and sorrow. They must help each other. One cannot take pleasure at the cost of the other. But the case on hand is not of a failure on that front. It has been admitted by the husband himself in his letter dated August 28, 1983 addressed to the wife that his parents demanded dowry. But he wrote to the wife that there was nothing wrong in that demand of his parents. This is indeed curious. He would not have stated so unless he was party to the demand. The wife has stated in her evidence that there were repeated demands for money from her mother-in-law. Her evidence cannot be brushed aside on the ground that she has not examined her father. It was not the case of the wife that the dowry was demanded directly from her father. The evidence of the father was therefore not material. It is also not proper to discredit the wife as hypersensitive or prone to exaggeration. That would be judging the wife by our style of manners and our standard of life. That we cannot apply. We must try to understand her feelings and then search for the nugget of truth in the entire evidence. 17. The contents of Ex. A-1 should not be read in isolation. It must be viewed against the background of accusations in the letter dated December 26, 1983 written by advocate for the wife to his counterpart. The relevant portion of the letter reads: in the background of these, the worst form of ill treatment that is meted out to our client was constant harassment for monies. It may be brought to your notice that prior to marriage on demand by your clients father a sum of Rs. The relevant portion of the letter reads: in the background of these, the worst form of ill treatment that is meted out to our client was constant harassment for monies. It may be brought to your notice that prior to marriage on demand by your clients father a sum of Rs. 17,000/- was given and also a scooter thereafter. It may be brought to your notice that one other main reason for your client to dowry deaths which are very frequently seen now-a-days in newspapers. It may be pointed out that your clients philosophy is that since our clients are financially sound, there is no wrong for your clients parents to ask for few more thousands. It may be pointed out and brought to your notice that it appears your clients sole object of marriage was to get the monies standing in the name of our client transferred to his name. It would be better to understand that money that stands in our clients name are somewhere about two lakhs. It is not out of place to mention that your clients behaviour and treatment with our client could only be said to be a pointer for seeking these monies alone and marriage was a device. 18. The cumulative effect of all the circumstances and the evidence of parties lead to the conclusion that the demand of dowry went on with the support of the husband. The High Court while dealing with this part of the case has observed that there is no evidence to show that the demands were such as to cause harassment to the wife. The High Court appears to have misconstrued the scope of cruelty in matrimonial affairs. The evidence as to harassment to the wife to meet any unlawful demand for money is necessary to constitute cruelty in criminal law. It is the requirement of the offence of cruelty defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 13 (1) (i -a) of the Hindu Marriage Act provided that the party has after solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty. What do these words mean? What should be the nature of cruelty? Should it be only intentional willful or deliberate? Is it necessary to prove the intention in matrimonial offence? We think not. WE have earlier said that cruelty may be of any kind and any variety. What do these words mean? What should be the nature of cruelty? Should it be only intentional willful or deliberate? Is it necessary to prove the intention in matrimonial offence? We think not. WE have earlier said that cruelty may be of any kind and any variety. It may be different in different cases. It is in relation to the conduct of parties to a marriage. That conduct which is complained of as cruelty by one spouse may not be so for the other spouse. There may be instances of cruelty by the unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result by the cultural conflict of the spouse. In such cases, even if the act of cruelty is established, the intention to commit suicide cannot be established. The aggrieved party may not get relief. We do not think that that was the intention with which the Parliament enacted Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The context and the set up, in which the word cruelty has been used in the section, seems to us, that intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. That word has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill treatment, The same is also the line of reasoning adopted by the House of Lords in Gollins v. Gollins (at 976) where Lord Evershed said: i am unable to accept the premise that cruelty in matrimonial proceedings requires or involves of necessity the element of malignity - though I do not of course doubt that if malignity be in fact established it would be highly relevant to a charge of cruelty. In my opinion, however, the question whether one party to a marriage has been guilty of cruelty to the other or has treated the other with cruelty does not, according to the ordinary sense of the language used by Parliament, involve the presence of malignity (or its equivalent); and if this view be right it follows, as I venture to think, that the present of intention to injure on the part of the spouse charged or (which is, as I think, the same thing) proof that the conduct of the party charged was aimed at the other spouse is not an essential requisite for cruelty. The question in all such cases is, to my mind, whether the acts or conduct of the party charged were cruel according to the ordinary sense of that word, rather than whether the party charged was himself or herself a cruel man or woman. ( 28 ) THE learned Trial Judge has lost sight of these principles and has examined the matter in the context as to whether any particular incident narrated in the petition clearly spells out an act of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The learned Trial Judge has lost sight of the effect of the petition averments and the evidence being read together and as to whether it indicated the existence of a situation where the petitioner-wife was subjected to consistent harassment and making her life miserable in the matrimonial house. The learned Trial Judge has virtually disbelieved all averments in the petition and the statements in the witness box by the petitioner and her witnesses and on the other hand has simply accepted the version of the respondent without examining the case from a balanced judicial approach and on applying the principles relevant and settled. The learned Trial Judge has also given much importance to events that had been narrated at the time of the marriage and has lost sight of the subsequent treatment meted out to the petitioner while she stayed for about five months in the matrimonial house. In fact the initial conduct of the respondent and his people which is definitely not worthy of approval, was only the beginning of the nightmare for the wife. Her experience thereafter was harrowing and pathetic and this was a direct result of the conduct on the part of the respondent and his people in the house. In fact the initial conduct of the respondent and his people which is definitely not worthy of approval, was only the beginning of the nightmare for the wife. Her experience thereafter was harrowing and pathetic and this was a direct result of the conduct on the part of the respondent and his people in the house. The respondent, on a particular occasion either consoling the petitioner herself or parents of the petitioner in itself does not absolve him of the responsibility to take proper care of the petitioner at the matrimonial house. It is not a sporadic chivalrous act of the respondent that is important or decisive but the overall act and conduct of the respondent and in the light of the developments that have taken place. The conduct of the respondent definitely did not inspire the confidence of the petitioner that her interest will be protected. The learned Trial Judge, holding that though the incident as narrated by the petitioner-wife having occurred, her inability to show a direct or indirect involvement of the respondent in the said incident should necessarily lead to the result of drawing adverse inference against the petitioner herself, is, in our view, clearly wrong. The learned Trial Judge is also unduly pursued by the outcome of the criminal complaint that the petitioner had filed against the respondent and his people. We have already indicated as to how the outcome of a criminal complaint in itself will not have a decisive bearing in a proceeding under Section 13 (l) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. ( 29 ) THE complaint in the petition that the respondent and his people did not even permit the petitioner to join her parents even during the month of Ashada as is customarily done and which in fact is not disputed, which according to the petitioner was one of the incidents and an act of harassment on the part of the respondent and his people in line with their general attitude towards the petitioner and her people, has been totally lost sight of by the learned Trial Judge and the approach of the learned Trial Judge in this regard is rather strange to say the least. The learned Trial Judge has ventured to provide his own interpretation and understanding of the concept and significance of the observance of the month of Ashada for a newly married wife and has thought it fit to justify the conduct of the respondent in not permitting the wife to go to her parents house on such hypothesis propounded by him and to support the version of the respondent and his parents. The learned Trial Judge concludes that denial to send petitioner to Ashada does not constitute cruelty. The error in the approach of the learned Trial Judge to the entire case is in his attempt to pick up an act of cruelty or discover an act of cruelty in each and every incident and then to conclude that it does not constitute cruelty. The discussion in the context of this incident by the learned Trial Judge clearly shows the approach of the learned Trial Judge which becomes obvious and on an examination of paras 18 and 19 of the judgment under appeal, which read as under: - the translation of which reads as under:- it is averred in para 8 of the application/petition that during May, 1997 when the petitioner fell down and sustained an injury, her parents had come to see her and at that time when they requested to send the petitioner to Hyderabad for Ashada, the respondents refused to send her. That shows the intention of the petitioner that she was always interested in going to Hyderabad and this is her mistake and the respondent is not responsible for this. Whatever it may be, the respondent has averred that the petitioner herself was not intending to go to her parents house during Ashada and therefore he did not send her. Ashada comes in June or July month and let us examine whether the petitioner went during Ashada or not. The intention behind the practise of going to Ashada has come into vogue because Ashada is a rainy season and if the couple cohabit during this season and conceive, baby will be born during May or June month and this may cause problem to the mother. But according to the statement of the petitioner, her plaint averments and her evidence, the petitioner had conceived even earlier to advent of Ashada and therefore sending her to her parents residence during Ashada does not come within the ambit of cruelty. But according to the statement of the petitioner, her plaint averments and her evidence, the petitioner had conceived even earlier to advent of Ashada and therefore sending her to her parents residence during Ashada does not come within the ambit of cruelty. ( 30 ) IT is precisely such a mistake that the learned Trial Judge has committed in examining the petition and coming to a conclusion that the wife has not been able to establish any act of cruelty on the part of the respondent-husband. ( 31 ) WE are of the view that the learned Trial Judge committed an error in holding that the wife was unable to prove any act of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The petition averments and the evidence of the petitioner and her mother clearly spells out the continuous harassment, humiliation and suffering that the petitioner-wife had been subjected to all along, which can only be described as an act of cruelty meted out to the petitioner-wife by the respondent-husband. The learned Trial Judge is in error in answering issue No. 1 against the petitioner-wife. We are of the view that from the material on record, the petitioner-wife has made out a case of she being subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his people. ( 32 ) THAT leads us to the next stage as to what order should be passed in the appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner has also submitted that the Court can take note of the fact that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and that the couple are living apart ever since July, 1997 and there being no possibility of they coming together to live together it is just and proper to dissolve the marriage by a decree for divorce. The learned Counsel has also sought to rely upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard: - 1) AIR 2002 SC 2582 -PRAVEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA = (2002) 5 SCC 706 2) (2002) 2 SCC 296 -G. V. N. KAMESWARA RAO VS. G. JABILLI ( 33 ) THE decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not lay down the law that in a given situation where the marriage is irretrievably broken down, the Court can dissolve the same by a decree of divorce. G. JABILLI ( 33 ) THE decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not lay down the law that in a given situation where the marriage is irretrievably broken down, the Court can dissolve the same by a decree of divorce. On the other hand, it is only on the grounds enumerated and the provisions provided under the Act that the Court could dissolve a marriage and pass a decree of divorce. If at all the fact of irretrievable break down of marriage is only a supporting circumstance in a given case where the necessary ground is made out by the aggrieved couple. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. BHAGAT VS. D. BHAGAT ( AIR 1994 SC 710 ) where the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage on noticing that the parties were fighting before the Courts for the last 25 years and they did not see any light at the end of the tunnel and as such the marriage deserved to be dissolved. Even here, the Supreme Court did find that the act on the part of the wife in making unjustifiable insinuations and the allegations that the husband and his family suffered from mental disorders, did constitute an act of cruelty which could be taken note of though it was a development during the pendency of the proceedings. However, in the instant case, we have noticed that the wife in fact had been subjected to cruelty by the respondent and his people and as such the only question is the relief that is required to be granted in the context of such a finding. ( 34 ) THE respondent husband has offered that he is even now ready to take back his wife. The husband has made such an offer when we directed the parties to be present before the Court for the purpose of exploring the possibility of the parties for conciliation and to find out if the parties could see to sink their differences and resume their marital relationship. The husband has made such an offer when we directed the parties to be present before the Court for the purpose of exploring the possibility of the parties for conciliation and to find out if the parties could see to sink their differences and resume their marital relationship. Though we are not satisfied with the bona fides of such an offer by the husband and that in itself cannot be a tilting factor on the aspect of finding of cruelty, in fact has no good bearing on this finding, still we would like to allow the parties to think over the matter yet again leisurely and in a cool atmosphere. Though the appellant wife having regard to her past harrowing experience, has stoutly refused to join her husband at this point of time and declined the offer, we would still like to keep the options open to the parties and would not like to foreclose even the remotest possibility of the parties coming together and leading a happy marital life. For this reason, instead of dissolving their marriage by passing a decree of divorce, we pass a decree for judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act. ( 35 ) IN the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and allow the petition of the wife filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act and pass a decree for judicial separation. ( 36 ) THE petitioner wife having not sought for any maintenance either during pendency of the proceedings or during the pendency of the appeal, we are not passing any orders for maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife as of now. We leave this question open so that the same can be considered if at all it arises and as and when it arises. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .