JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2004 passed by the District Judge, Churu, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants' petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and has rejected his case for divorce. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant-husband, Hardayal and respondent-wife, Smt. Santosh were married on 25.06.1998 according to Hindu rites and customs. However, immediately after his marriage, the appellant discovered that his wife was four months pregnant. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent wife back to her parental place. Since then she never returned. Subsequently, she lodged a FIR, FIR No. 216/1999, for offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC against the appellant. However, eventually, the appellant was acquitted in the said criminal case. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. But, by judgment and decree dated 27.08.2004, the learned trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal before this Court, 2. Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the appellant had sought the divorce on two grounds, namely, cruelty and desertion on the part of respondent-wife. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has erred in concluding that merely because the respondent-wife was pregnant prior to her marriage, as such, the said act does not come within the definition of "cruelty". The learned Judge has overlooked the fact that the pregnancy was never revealed to the appellant prior to the marriage. Moreover, any husband would be shocked to know that before the marriage, his wife has been impregnated by another man. The fact that a wife was not chaste prior to her marriage would mentally shock and agonize the husband. Therefore, "cruelly" on her part is writ large. Furthermore, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that subsequently she had lodged a criminal case under Section 498A and 406 IPC against the husband. In that case, he has already been acquitted. Thus, she had falsely implicated the husband in a criminal case. The allegation made by her certainly tantamount to cruelty. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. In that case, he has already been acquitted. Thus, she had falsely implicated the husband in a criminal case. The allegation made by her certainly tantamount to cruelty. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Pareek, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that it was not proven by the husband that his wife was in, fact, pregnant prior to the marriage. Therefore, her alleged pregnancy does not amount to a cruelty. Moreover, merely because the appellant has been acquitted in a criminal case, it would not buttress his case for seeking divorce. Hence, he has supported the impugned judgment. 4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the criminal case, the parents of the respondent-wife have clearly admitted the fact that their daughter had delivered a child within six months of the marriage. Moreover, Mr. Sheyobux (P.W.8), an independent witness, had already testified that the respondent-wife had delivered the child within six months after her marriage. Mr. Sheyobux has not declared as a hostile witness. Therefore, the prosecution, in that case, was, bound by his testimony. According to the learned counsel once the admission has been made by the wife's side, there was no need to prove the factum of pregnancy and the fact of delivery of a child within six months of the marriage. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the judgment passed in Criminal Case No. 356/1999-State of Rajasthan v. Hardayalram. 6. The word "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. However in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 , the Apex Court opined as under : 10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, 'limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes, mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression 'cruelty' 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. Cruelty is a course or 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 in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. Cruelty is a course or 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 in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, Second the impact of such treatment in 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. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or 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. 12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together 'without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential. to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Physical violence is not absolutely essential. to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. 13. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. 14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each others fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. 7. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. 7. Cruelty is not only limited to physical assault, but also includes mental shock caused by an erring spouse to the other spouse. In a traditional society like ours, the chastity of a woman is highly valued. Therefore, considering the social background of the appellant, considering the fact that he comes from a rural background, he would certainly be shocked to know that his wife was already pregnant prior to the marriage. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment in the criminal case clearly reveals that the parents of respondent-wife have admitted in their testimonies that their daughter was, indeed, pregnant and had delivered a child within six months after her marriage. Even, Mr. Sheyobux (P.W. 8), has also claimed that the respondent-wife delivered a child just after six month after her marriage. Therefore, the fact that the husband has discovered, after the marriage, that his wife is pregnant by another person, it would certainly amount to mental cruelty caused by the wife to the husband. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in concluding that such act being an act prior to the marriage would not fall within the ambit of word "cruelty". 9. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a false allegation made by the erring spouse against the other spouse would fall within the ambit of word "cruelty". In the present case, the parents of the wife had clearly admitted in their testimony that they had lodged the FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC merely in order to pressurise the appellant to co-habit with the wife. Thus, according to the appellant, he had been falsely implicated in a criminal case. Hence, the respondent wife had levelled frivolous and erroneous allegations against the husband. The allegations would certainly tantamount to cruelty on the part of the wife. 10. Thus, according to the appellant, he had been falsely implicated in a criminal case. Hence, the respondent wife had levelled frivolous and erroneous allegations against the husband. The allegations would certainly tantamount to cruelty on the part of the wife. 10. Even if the grounds of desertion could not be proved before the learned trial Court, the learned Judge was not justified in dismissing the application under Section 13 of the Act especially when the ground of cruelty stood established. Hence this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27.08.2004 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The divorce is granted to Har Dayal from his wife Smt. Santosh. The decree for divorce shall be drawn up accordingly. No order as to cost.Appeal Allowed. *******