JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:-This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act for short) filed by the respondent-wife for the grant of decree of divorce has been allowed. 2. On the last date of hearing, one more opportunity was granted to the appellant to resolve the matter amicably, failing which, it was ordered that the appeal shall be taken up for final disposal on merits. The records of the case have been received. The appellant has not been able to resolve the matter, therefore, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. The marriage between the parties to the appeal was solemnized on 10.7.1997 at Bhucho Mandi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties started living as husband and wife at village Chotian and cohabited as such. Twin daughters were born to the parties on 31.1.2005 at Bathinda. One of the daughters is with the appellant while the other is with the respondent. It is submitted that the parents of the respondent-wife had spent about Rs.1 lac on the marriage at the asking of the appellant and his parents. The dowry articles including, 4 tolas of gold ornaments; Godrej Almirah, Dressing Table, Double Bed, Chairs, Table, Colour T.V. and other articles of daily use were given to the respondent­ wife. Soon after the marriage, the appellant-husband started ill-treating the respondent-wife on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry. She was ill-treated for bringing more dowry. The, appellant-husband demanded Rs.50,000/- in cash from the respondent which he asked her to bring from her parents. The respondent was told that in case the demand, was not fulfilled, she has no place in the matrimonial home. The respondent-wife was also beaten by the appellant and turned out of the matrimonial home. It is submitted that the appellant is drug addict and takes all types of intoxicants and drugs. Besides, he is a spend thrift person. Whenever the parents of the respondent came to meet her and gave her some money, the same was snatched by the appellant for the lust of his drugs. It is submitted that the appellant is drug addict and takes all types of intoxicants and drugs. Besides, he is a spend thrift person. Whenever the parents of the respondent came to meet her and gave her some money, the same was snatched by the appellant for the lust of his drugs. According to the respondent, a Panchayat was convened consisting of various persons and they went to the house of the appellant and requested, him to mend his ways and not to demand dowry. The appellant, it is alleged, misbehaved with the respondent and respectables under the influence of drugs. It is submitted that on 23.11.2003, the respondent admitted his guilt and promised the respondent that he will never take drugs in future and accordingly, a compromise was effected between the parties, the terms of which were reduced into writing. Despite that, the appellant did not mend his ways and still beat the respondent for demand of more dowry. Besides, he took drugs. About one and a half years back, he tried to take drugs by injecting himself on the right hand due to which his right hand got gangrene and his thumb and two fingers of the right hand had to be amputated by the doctors of Christian Medical College(CMC), Ludhiana. The entire expenses for this were borne by the parents of the respondent-wife. The appellant never gave money to the respondent-wife for her daily needs or for getting petty medicines during her pregnancy. She was kept hungry for days together. She was always tortured by keeping her palms under the pegs of the cot and the appellant used to sit on the cot thereafter. Sometimes, the parents of the respondent had to pay money and ration for her daily need and that money was even snatched away from her by the appellant to fulfill his need of drugs. On 1.9.2005, it is alleged, the respondent was given a severe beating by the appellant under the influence of liquor and drugs. She was turned out of the matrimonial home by saying that if she brings Rs.50,000/- in cash from her parents, then only she could live with the appellant as his wife otherwise she would have no place in the matrimonial home. She was turned out of the matrimonial home by saying that if she brings Rs.50,000/- in cash from her parents, then only she could live with the appellant as his wife otherwise she would have no place in the matrimonial home. On the evening of 1.9.2005, the parents of the respondent again gathered a Panchayat consisting of afore-said persons and requested the appellant to keep and rehabilitate the respondent as his wife and not to ill-treat her. However, the appellant was adamant on his demand. These acts of appellant, it is alleged have caused great mental tension on the mind of respondent and now it has become impossible for the respondent to live with the appellant as his wife. 4. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant in which he stated that the respondent has no locus standi or cause of action to file the petition. It is alleged that the respondent has filed the petition on wrong facts and concealed material facts from the Court. Besides, she has not, come to the Court with clean hands. It is also alleged, that the petition was not maintainable as the same has been filed without the expiry of the statutory period for filing such a petition for divorce. The respondent was also estopped from filing the petition by her own act, conduct and acquiescence. The petition it is stated has been filed by the respondent only to harass and humiliate the appellant. The fact of marriage between the parties and the children having been born out of the wedlock was admitted. It is, however, stated that the marriage that was solemnized was a very simple one and no dowry was demanded by the appellant or his parents. The other allegations of consuming liquor and drugs have been denied. It is also stated that in fact the appellant took a Panchayat consisting of relatives and brother of the appellant, Ruldu Ram and other respectable of village Chotian and requested the respondent-wife and her parents to let the respondent join the society of the appellant and also to look after their minor daughter Priya. However, the respondent at the instance of her parents did not agree to join his society without any rhyme or reason, and all the Panchayat members and the respectables had to return disappointed. However, the respondent at the instance of her parents did not agree to join his society without any rhyme or reason, and all the Panchayat members and the respectables had to return disappointed. It is stated that the parties lived together as husband and wife for eight and a half years. Moreover, the respondent-wife had taunted the appellant that the appellant was unable to become the father of a son being impotent but when the twin daughters were born out of the wedlock on 13.1.2005 at Bathinda even then the respondent, it is alleged, remained adamant with her attitude and always threatened the appellant to divorce her, failing which she will commit suicide and thereby get all family members of the appellant involved in a criminal case. The appellant, it is stated, tolerated the behaviour of the respondent with the hope that she would mend her ways; however, she remained adamant towards the appellant. In fact she did not like the appellant and wanted to remarry herself with of a rich family. It is submitted that the appellant was always ready and willing to maintain the respondent according to his capacity. The mother of the appellant is unable to do any domestic work being of old age and is also living in an indisposed, condition. The father of, the appellant had already died in the year 2001. The father of the appellant during his lifetime gave separate residential accommodation as per the” choice of the respondent-wife. Even a Karyana shop was arranged to earn livelihood of the appellant during his lifetime. The appellant, it is stated, remains in an indisposed condition due to the faults of the respondent-wife as she has deserted him intentionally and with a malafide intention, with the sole motive to perform her second marriage with some handsome boy of a rich family. It is submitted that one thumb and two fingers of the right hand of the appellant were amputated by the doctors of CMC, Ludhiana due to gangrene. All the expenses were borne by the elder brother of the appellant. Even at the time of delivery of the twin daughters, ‘it is submitted, the expenses were borne by the elder brother-Ruldu Ram of the appellant and his relatives. The respondent-wife went to meet her parents in the month of August 2005 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan festival. All the expenses were borne by the elder brother of the appellant. Even at the time of delivery of the twin daughters, ‘it is submitted, the expenses were borne by the elder brother-Ruldu Ram of the appellant and his relatives. The respondent-wife went to meet her parents in the month of August 2005 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan festival. The appellant went many times to the house of the respondent-wife but she always avoided to accompany the appellant by making one excuse or the other. The appellant also took Panchayat members and requested her to join his society and look-after the minor child Priya; however, she flatly refused to do so. It is submitted that no Panchayat persons came to the house of the appellant rather the appellant along with Panchayat and other relatives had gone to the house of the respondent but she flatly refused to join the society of the appellant. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial. Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce for dissolution of her marriage against the respondent on the ground of cruelty as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the petition by her act and conduct as alleged? OPR. 3. Relief. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-wife holding that the appellant has been treating her with cruelty and on this ground the respondent-wife was entitled to divorce. Issue No.2 was decided against the appellant. It has held that in view of its finding on issue No.1, the respondent was not estopped from filing the petition. 6. In view of the above, the petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of the marriage was allowed and a decree was passed dissolving the marriage between the parties. The said order of the learned Additional District Judge granting divorce is, assailed by the- appellant-husband. 7. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Budhladawala, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the learned trial Court has committed material irregularities and illegalities while passing the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is a drug addict, is based upon mere conjectures and surmises and is not corroborated in any manner. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant is a drug addict, is based upon mere conjectures and surmises and is not corroborated in any manner. It is also submitted that the appellant has always been ready and willing to keep the respondent-wife. The allegations for demand for dowry are also denied as the father of the respondent was not in a position to pay anything. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. Sukhjeet Kaur, 2001(3) CCC 261 (P&H). Besides, learned counsel cites Roshi vs. Sher Singh, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 818. Therefore, is submitted that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Court below set aside. 8. In response, Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent-wife has been through hell for all these years. It is submitted that the appellant had come to see the respondent wife and on the same day he got his marriage solemnized and took her. This, according to learned counsel, was for the reason that the parents of the respondent were unable to make enquiries with regard to his being a drug addict. It is also contended at a thumb and two fingers of the right hand of the appellant had to be amputated as the appellant had been injecting intoxicants. During the pendency of the divorce petition before the learned trial Court also, the appellant was admitted in CMC, Ludhiana on 27.1.2006 from where he was discharged on 11.3.2006. The said admission was on account of intake of drugs. Reference has been made to the cross-examination of Madan Lal-A W-2, father of the respondent-wife and cross-examination of Shyam Lal -A W-3, wherein he inter alia states that the appellant was admitted to the CMC Ludhiana on 27.1.2006. It is contended that the cruelty has been proved. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It may be noticed that the respondent-wife had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It may be noticed that the respondent-wife had filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. “Cruelty” in terms of Section 13 of the Act admits in its ambit and scope such acts as may cause mental agony to any opposite party. Intention to be cruel is not an essential element of cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act. It is sufficient if the cruelty is of such a nature that it is not possible for one party to live with the other. In the present case, the learned trial Court while considering the case, noticed that there are sufficient allegations of the respondent that the appellant was demanding an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. It is on the failure of the respondent-wife to fulfill the said demand that he started harassing her and treated her with cruelty. It has also been noticed that the petitioner was given severe beatings and she was also kept hungry continuously for days together. It was noticed that the right hand thumb and two fingers of the appellant had been amputated. The appellant, pleaded that he had sustained injuries and that was the reason for) developing gangrene. However, the respondent claims that the gangrene was due to excessive use of the drugs. The plea taken by the respondent­ wife was accepted to be correct. This was due to the fact that not only the right hand but the entire body of the respondent appeared to have been affected. 10. A reference has been made to the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the learned trial Court, which is with regard to payment of maintenance by the appellant to the respondent. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that he was a sick person and is unable to do any work. A medical certificate issued by Dr. Kuldeep Singh was placed on record. In order to verify the physical condition of the appellant, he was ordered to appear in Court and he appeared on 12.6.2006. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that he was a sick person and is unable to do any work. A medical certificate issued by Dr. Kuldeep Singh was placed on record. In order to verify the physical condition of the appellant, he was ordered to appear in Court and he appeared on 12.6.2006. The learned trial Court after observing him, was of the view that he was a sick person and was not in a position to do any labour for the purpose of earning so as to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife. Accordingly, the application filed by the respondent-wife for seeking maintenance was declined. 11. The circumstances of the case are that the respondent-wife pleaded that the appellant is addicted to drugs whereas the appellant has denied the allegation. Kanta Kumari-respondent-wife appeared in the witness box as her own witness and reiterated her assertion as made in the petition. It was submitted that the appellant was a drug addict and takes all types of intoxicants and drugs. The respondent-wife was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. In the cross-examination, it was stated by the respondent-wife that the thumb and two fingers of there right hand of the appellant have been amputated at CMC Ludhiana on account of injecting some intoxicants. It is also stated that when she was married, her husband used to take drugs. He took tablets and capsules. He takes drinks and injects intoxicants. He consumes poppy-husk costing Rs.40-50/-. The doctor had informed that the appellant used to bring intoxicant tablets from Bathinda. She did not report the matter pertaining to taking of drugs by her husband to the police. It is also stated in her cross-examination that her husband used to keep her hungry and turn her out in the street. They paid him Rs.10,000/- but she did not remember the date. It is also stated that the husband of the respondent had taken Rs.5000/- from her parents for drugs, Madan Lal-father of the respondent-wife appeared in the witness box as A W-2. He also reiterated the version as given by the respondent-wife. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on the fact that he (Madan Lal AW-2) had stated in his cross-examination that he is willing to send his daughter to reside with the appellant. He also reiterated the version as given by the respondent-wife. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on the fact that he (Madan Lal AW-2) had stated in his cross-examination that he is willing to send his daughter to reside with the appellant. However, in my view, the same is not of much consequence as the father would always want that his daughter is well settled in her matrimonial home. It is the position of the wife that is to be seen for considering as to whether she has been subjected to cruelty and whether it is possible for her to live with her husband. Sham Lal appeared on behalf of the respondent-wife as AW-3. In his cross­ examination, it is stated by him that they had never seen the appellant taking drugs or beating the respondent. However, when they came to Bhucho Mandi, he saw that the appellant was intoxicated and he appeared to be taking drugs but he had never seen him doing so. The appellant produced Harmesh Kumar as DW-1. He states that 4-5 persons and he himself had gone to see the girl and brought her there and then. Even Madan Lal AW-2 in his cross-examination accepts the position that 1-3 persons went to see to her daughter and took her with them there and then. From the said evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis that there can possibly be no demand for dowry as the respondent was taken there and then. However, another fact which is discernible is that no time was given to the parents of the girl to verify the antecedents of the appellant. 12. Be that as it may, it may be noticed that the demand for dowry was made during the subsistence of the marriage. It was not a pre-condition for marriage. Besides, in his cross-examination Harmesh Kumar DW-1 accepts that she was given a ‘pettie’ (box) in dowry. The allegations of other dowry articles or Shagun being given were denied. It may be noticed that it has come on record that the appellant had cross-examined the respondent­ wife’s witness on the admission of the appellant in CMC Hospital on 27.1.2006. The discharge summary of CMC Hospital is on record. The allegations of other dowry articles or Shagun being given were denied. It may be noticed that it has come on record that the appellant had cross-examined the respondent­ wife’s witness on the admission of the appellant in CMC Hospital on 27.1.2006. The discharge summary of CMC Hospital is on record. It may be noticed that it has been observed therein under the column “presenting symptoms” -- “35 years old male on IV drug abuser x 10-25 years came to OPD with chief complaints of - Pus discharge from just below ‘right inguinal area x 3 month. - Blackening of the toes/finger of the right foot x 1 week. History of injection over his right inguinal region possibly in right femoral vein/artery. H/o loss of sensation over right foot.” 13. A perusal of the discharge summary shows that there is a history of injection over the appellant’s right inguinal region, possibly in right femoral vein/aretery. The condition of the appellant was noticed at the time when he appeared before the trial Court on 12.6.2006. It was observed in the order dated 17.7.2006 by the learned trial Court that he was unable to do any work. Coupled with the said fact, it has been observed to be a case of where the appellant has been taking drugs. The judgment in the case of Karnail Singh v. Sukhjeet Kaur, 2001 (3) Civil Court Cases 261 (P&H), referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, would show that the wife therein had not examined any independent person to suggest that the husband ever made a demand of dowry or that her father was in a, position to pay the same. The matter was not even reported to the police or the panchayat. However, the marriage had survived for seven years. Such a demand, it was observed, could have originated just after, the marriage or after a reasonable period of time of marriage. Cruelty was not held to be proved. In the present case, however, even if the demand of dowry is not held to be proved, the fact that the appellant is a drug addict, goes a long way to show that it would not be possible for the respondent-wife to live with him. In Roshi v. Sher Singh, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 818 (P&H) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, the wife had filed a petition for divorce. In Roshi v. Sher Singh, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 818 (P&H) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, the wife had filed a petition for divorce. She had levelled serious allegations against her husband in the said case that he had tried to “prostitute” her. The said allegation was specifically denied, by the husband therein. It was observed that when the wife in the said case appeared in the witness box as PW-1, she did not utter even a word about the allegation that her husband had tried to prostitute her. The mother of the wife therein who also appeared in. the witness box, however, stated that the petitioner therein had told her that the respondent in the said case had tried to prostitute her. The respondent, when appeared in the witness box, denied having been compelled to live the life of a prostitute. Besides, the husband was not cross-examined in this regard on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the wife in the said case was held dis-entitled to a decree for divorce. The physical, condition of the appellant and he being addicted to drugs, necessarily constitute such a degree of mental cruelty that it would not be possible the respondent-wife to lead a normal married life in his company. Besides, it would be unreasonable to expect a person to put up with a spouse of such a condition. In the case of mental cruelty, the matter is to be considered as to the nature of the treatment and its impact on the spouse claiming the matrimonial relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is to be considered in the backdrop upon the kind of life that the parties are leading, their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each case is to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. In the present case, the circumstances are such that the appellant-husband has been found to be taking intoxicants by using injections. The marriage was solemnized between the parties and on the same day, the appellant had gone to see the respondent. There was no time for the parents and relatives of the respondent-wife to verify the antecedents of the appellant. By using of injection needle for injecting intoxicants, the appellant suffered from gangrene. His thumb and two fingers of the right hand were amputated. There was no time for the parents and relatives of the respondent-wife to verify the antecedents of the appellant. By using of injection needle for injecting intoxicants, the appellant suffered from gangrene. His thumb and two fingers of the right hand were amputated. All this goes to show the use of intoxicants by the appellants. The petitioner-wife is, therefore, claiming divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the social setup, it can be safely inferred that it would be difficult for the respondent-wife to live with her husband. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. —————————