R. B. DIXIT, J. ( 1 ) THE Grahsutra lays down that marriage is spiritual and holy bond. Manu says that a marriage is a divine institution given by Gods. But, today it appears that the modern man has totally ignored the underlying divinity of the institution of marriage and has turned it into a status symbol and means to boost his authority over others. Unfortunately, in the present case marriage has turned into a tail of sorrow where soon after solemnization of the marriage couple took a complete about-turn and parted with each other without consummation of it. ( 2 ) THE husband, appellant, had filed a divorce petition with the allegation that after marriage respondent, wife, came to his parent's house on 11-12-1994 at 8-00 a. m. and on the same day went to worship village deity at village Daurar with him and accompanied by brother-in-law and aunt. While travelling in car to his village the respondent started quarrelling with him on a false and concocted charge that appellant is already married and having two children and therefore expressed unwillingness to reside with the appellant. Appellant tried to console her but of no avail. The respondent also refused to participate in the reception programme which was going to be held on the same day at Jain-Sadan. However, after a great persuasion the respondent joined the reception programme for a few minutes and left the venue immediately without its going completed. After returning the house respondent lost her temper, cried in loud voice and threatened to commit suicide by putting off and throwing her clothes and ornaments. She also threatened the appellant and his family members to implicate them in criminal prosecution and to send them to jail. On being contacted the parents of the respondent-wife they refused to come and help in any way. However, in next morning respondent went to her parents' house along with her brother and since then did not care to return to the house of appellant. ( 3 ) IN reply to the above allegations it has been averred by respondent that the engagement ceremony had taken place a year before the marriage and the parents of respondent had given enough money, jewellery and a Fiat car to the appellant. ( 3 ) IN reply to the above allegations it has been averred by respondent that the engagement ceremony had taken place a year before the marriage and the parents of respondent had given enough money, jewellery and a Fiat car to the appellant. 78 however, the appellant insisted for a Maruti car in place of Fiat and on account of inability of the father of the girl in meeting out the demand for Maruti car that the appellant started harassing and torturing the respondent. The appellant became so annoyed with the respondent and her parents that the parents of the respondent were not even invited in the reception programme and ultimately appellant left the respondent next day at her parent's house. ( 4 ) LEARNED trial Court, 7th Additional judge to the District Judge, Gwalior by the impugned judgment dated 5-1-2001 passed in HMC No. 183-A/96 found the allegations of the husband as baseless and further found that the husband-appellant was annoyed with the respondent because of not meeting the demand for Maruti car by father of the girl and consequently dismissed the divorce petition, against which the present appeal has been filed. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel of the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant properly and the reason of annoyance on the part of appellant i. e. . not meeting out the demand of Maruti Car is palpably false because the Fiat car was given four days before the marriage in Phaldan ceremony, when it caused no annoyance to the appellant otherwise he would not have agreed even to solemnize the marriage. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel of respondent on the other hand has however supported the findings of the learned trial Court. ( 7 ) I have anxiously considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully perused the record. ( 8 ) APPELLANT, Sanjeev Parashar (AW-1) who is a Civil Engineer, has admitted that his wife respondent is M. Sc. in Military Science. He has repeated the allegations in his statement as made in the divorce petition. He has also admitted that the engagement of the marriage took place a year before the marriage and the marriage was also solemnized peacefully and without any objection or disagreement on the part of the respondent. in Military Science. He has repeated the allegations in his statement as made in the divorce petition. He has also admitted that the engagement of the marriage took place a year before the marriage and the marriage was also solemnized peacefully and without any objection or disagreement on the part of the respondent. While proceeding to his village Daurar ' with the respondent in a Maruti Car he and his wife were sitting with his aunt and it is during the course of journey that the respondent had levelled the charge that he is already married and having a child at Delhi. His brother-in-law was sitting in front seat. It is on the basis of this evidence that learned counsel of respondent has contended that no educated and recently married wife could openly level such a charge in presence of relatives and family members while going to worship the village-deity, more so, that none of the occupants of the car who were travelling with the couple are examined in evidence. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved this charge to be baseless. ( 9 ) THE appellant in his cross-examina- tion has further admitted that the respondent had raised no objection in worshipping the deity after reaching the village. Even after returning from the village he made no complaint regarding behaviour of the. wife to her parents, even when admitting that telephonic facility is available at his house as well as at the house of the bride. In para 14 the appellant has admitted that family members of the bride and his in-laws were present in the night of reception. However, they were not apprised about the situation which he had faced during his journey to his village. He has also admitted that although initially the respondent was unwilling to participate in the reception however on being persuaded immediately got herself dressed like a bride and proceeded with him in the family car. At the reception venue also photographs and videography was taken and while doing so respondent did not object to it. Before participating in the reception the respondent of course complained about headache and was taken in the car to have a glass of juice. The respondent also did not object to receive any gift or presents offered at the time of reception. Before participating in the reception the respondent of course complained about headache and was taken in the car to have a glass of juice. The respondent also did not object to receive any gift or presents offered at the time of reception. The Fiat car which he received in the marriage is still lying at his residence. In the circumstances it appears that the conduct and behaviour of the respondent was quite normal in so far as participating in the reception. ( 10 ) THE appellant has also stated in his cross-examination that at about 7. 00 or 7. 30 p. m. respondent had refused to go in the reception. On the other hand he has also admitted para 5 of his petition wherein it has been stated that the reception was going to be held at 9. 00 p. m. It is on the basis of this evidence that the learned counsel of respondent contended that the respondent might have refused to proceed to the venue 79 of the reception so early at 7. 00 p. m. when it was going to be held at 9. 00 p. m. according to the averments of the plaint. ( 11 ) REGARDING the post reception behaviour of the respondent the appellant has stated that respondent after returning home threatened to prosecute him and his family for demanding dowry and put off her jewellery and clothes in presence of the relatives and family members. This behaviour on the part of the respondent created a horror in his mind that it is not safe to live with her in future. However, it has been submitted on the other hand by the learned counsel of respondent that in this regard except the statements of brother and father no other family member or relative who were present at that moment were examined in support of the allegations. That apart such a behaviour cannot be expected on the part of a normal woman. The appellant has made no attempt to examine the mental condition of the respondent. In the circumstances learned trial Court also disbelieved the allegations that the respondent is of abnormal behaviour. That apart such a behaviour cannot be expected on the part of a normal woman. The appellant has made no attempt to examine the mental condition of the respondent. In the circumstances learned trial Court also disbelieved the allegations that the respondent is of abnormal behaviour. ( 12 ) RAJEEV Parashar (AW-2), elder brother of the appellant, has totally exaggerated the situation while stating that the respondent has refused to take her seat on the stage of reception and has also stated that when he enquired any problem with the respondent she told him to proceed to home first and when she was brought to the residence she started shouting loudly that the marriage has been solemnized without her consent and, therefore, she will involve them in criminal cases. Looking to the gravity of the situation he therefore sent his mother to the house of respondent's parents, however, the parents refused to hear anything. He has further stated that the parents and brothers of the respondent had come to their house in the night itself and tried to console the respondent but the appellant has stated nothing of this sort in his evidence. In the circumstances the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. ( 13 ) RATNAKAR Parashar (AW-3), the father of the appellant, has gone a step further and had stated that after returning from reception the respondent rushed towards hanging electric wires of the balcony, however, she was caught by the guests in the house. As has already been noticed no guest of the house has been examined in the evidence. Thus the evidence on this count is contradictory. ( 14 ) RESPONDENT Mithelesh (NW-1) has refuted all the charges levelled against her in her evidence and had stated that the appellant was annoyed because Maruti Car was not presented in place of Fiat car. Since, maruti car was not easily available her father has, however, promised to replace it lateron. It is because of this reason that her parents and family members were not invited in reception programme and ultimately the appellant left her unceremoniously at her parent's house. Since, maruti car was not easily available her father has, however, promised to replace it lateron. It is because of this reason that her parents and family members were not invited in reception programme and ultimately the appellant left her unceremoniously at her parent's house. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel of the appellant has however argued that admittedly the father of the appellant had already a Maruti car and since the father of the bride had already offered cars in marriage of other girls the question of demanding any car on the part of the bridegroom does not arise. ( 16 ) BHAGWAT Prasad Mudgal (NW-2), brother of the respondent has also stated that in-laws of appellant were annoyed on account of not meeting out their demand for a Maruti car. According to him he was informed that the appellant had refused to go to worship the family deity unless the demand of Maruti car is fulfilled and it is for that reason that they were also not invited at the reception programme. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel of the appellant has submitted that in case if the counter allegation regarding the demand of Maruti car is found false then there was no reason on the part of the appellant to come forward with the prayer of divorce against the respondent. However, it appears that the allegations as levelled against the respondent are neither established nor appears to be probable in facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence as brought on record. In such a situation it may be possible that some misunderstanding might have caused the annoyance of both the parties. In any case, it has further been urged on behalf of appellant that where for the last six years no attempts were made for restitution of conjugal rights on behalf of wife the possibility of resumption of the couple joining together has fad away and the marriage has become practically dead which has entitled the appellant to claim a decree of divorce against the respondent. 80 ( 18 ) RELIANCE is placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chanderkala trivedi (Smt.) v. Dr. S. P. Trivedi, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 232 ; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Chetan Dass v. Kamla devi, reported in (2001) 5 JT (SC) 21. 80 ( 18 ) RELIANCE is placed on decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Chanderkala trivedi (Smt.) v. Dr. S. P. Trivedi, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 232 ; V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Chetan Dass v. Kamla devi, reported in (2001) 5 JT (SC) 21. However, it has to be noticed that in the aforesaid decisions of the apex Court the decree of dissolution of marriage was allowed on certain terms and conditions where the husband had agreed to provide house and enough cash for the maintenance of wife for her welfare and particularly when the behaviour of wife was found shaky or suffering from mental imbalance. However, in the present case the allegation of mental cruelty are not found properly proved. It has also been observed in case of Chetan Dass (supra) that where the averments regarding desertion by wife having been made without reasonable cause, the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Husband's behaviour falling in category of misconduct he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs and, therefore, the decree of divorce cannot be granted on the ground of marriage having been irretrievably broken. ( 19 ) IN a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Smt. Gulla v. Mewalal, reported in 1966 MPLJ Note 102 it was observed that not doing household work properly and some times going to parents' house and staying there for, four or five days at a stretch might all be causing unpleasantness or even annoyance to the husband, but every unpalatable behaviour of the other spouse was not necessarily cruelty, either physical or mental, so as to afford a ground for judicial separation under Section 10 of the hindu Marriage Act. ( 20 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel of appellant the standard of proof to be applied for proving cruelty need not to establish charge of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex court, in the case of Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 wherein it has been laid down that the plea regarding existence of a fact may be founded on a balance of probabilities. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex court, in the case of Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 wherein it has been laid down that the plea regarding existence of a fact may be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the Court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. Their first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. ( 21 ) IN a Full bench decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Dr. Keshaorao krishnaji Londhe v. Mrs. Nisha Londhe, reported in AIR 1984 Bombay 413 it has been made clear that the cruelty contemplated under Section 13 (l) (i-a) of the Act neither attracts the old English doctrine of danger nor the statutory limits embodied in old section 10 (l) (b ). The cruelty contemplated is a conduct of such type that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. ( 22 ) THE Apex Court in its decision in case of J. L. Nanda v. Smt. Veena Nanda, reported in AIR 1988 SC 407 , has observed that sometimes the temperament of the parties may not be conducive to each other which may result in petty quarrels and troubles although it was contented by the appellant that he had to suffer various ailments on account of this kind of behaviour meted out to him by the wife; but it could not be held on the basis of any material that ailment of the appellant was the direct result of her conduct. ( 23 ) IN a decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Smt. Kalpana, reported in 1993 (1) MPWN 4 , while relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J; L. Nanda (supra) it was made clear that the cruelty in order to furnish a ground for divorce, has been given its wide meaning, but that does not mean that any stress of married life would amount to cruelty. Though acts or conduct of the parties amounting to cruelty cannot be classified, it certainly does not include normal wear and tear of married life. ( 24 ) YET in another decision of this Court in case of Vimla Ladkani (Smt.) v. Dr. Chandra Prakash Ladkani, reported in 1996 jlj 42 , it has been held that 'cruelty' postulates a treatment to the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the petitioner's mind that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner 81 to live with the other spouse. It need not be physical violence administered by defaulting party. The cruelty may be either physical or mental. The question of mental cruelty should be answered In the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status of the parties, environment of the parties, etc. ( 25 ) IN a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Surbhi agrawal v, Sanjay Agrawal, reported in AIR 2000 Madh Pra 139, it has been held that the concept of cruelty has been varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual in its application according to social status of the persons involved and their economic conditions and other matters. The question whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the spouses regard being had to their culture, temperaments, status in life and state of health of the parties, interaction between them In their daily life and numerous other factors which cannot be brought in and confined to exclusive or inclusive definition. Cruelty may result where the complaining spouse establishes his being treated with cruelty whether physical, mental, social or otherwise but the acts complained of must be more serious than ordinary wear and tear of marriage, falling in the category of conscious acts cruel in nature as that is the underlying requirement of the provision. ( 26 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, reported In AIR 2002 SC 2582 has further made it clear that cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (l) (ia) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. Same view has further been reiterated in the case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra pandey, reported in 2002 SAR (Civil) 161 : ( AIR 2002 SC 591 ). ( 27 ) IN so far as the present case is concerned the demand of Maruti car in place of fiat car even if found proved was not such a cause of annoyance to the husband that he would have refused cohabitation to the first night with the wife and it cannot be conceived equally true that the allegations levelled against husband that he is keeping a separate wife and a child born of her made in running car in presence of other occupants, relatives and family members of the husband, particularly so when none, of the witness sitting in the car was examined in evidence, the behaviour of respondent was in no way abnormal while participating in the reception programme. In so far as her subsequent behaviour also no attempt was made to examine any of the guests or relatives in presence of whom it is alleged that she had tried to commit suicide. In totality of the facts and circumstances, therefore the cruelty on the part of the wife is not found proved. ( 28 ) IT is further to be noticed that the husband-appellant In this case has not cooperated in reconciliation proceedings. He has not given a chance to the wife-respondent to live with him who prayed before Court that for her husband is like a God and she wants to reside with him. The appellant had also turned down the request even during his cross-examination on the ground that behaviour on the part of the bride was such that it was not safe to take her with him. At any rate, where such an alleged behaviour of the wife Is not found' proved by reliable evidence the Court is not obliged to grant a decree of divorce and in the circumstances the learned trial Court has rightly refused to grant such a relief to the appellant-husband. ( 29 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .