JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. This appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2006, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Petition No. 343 of 2004, whereby the petition filed by the appellant-wife for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and for return of streedhan under Section 27 of the said Act was dismissed. 2. Marriage between appellant Renu with respondent Rakesh Kannojia was solemnized on 16.11.2002 at Dehradun. Appellant Renu moved a petition under Sections 13 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of divorce and also for return of her streedhan, detailed and specified in the list enclosed with the petition. It was pleaded in the petition that when the appellant-wife reached her matrimonial home after marriage, respondent husband showed his displeasure by saying that the articles given in the marriage were cheap and were of inferior quality. He also lamented that father of the appellant-wife did not give Maruti car and a cash of `1,00,000/- in the marriage. On 19.11.2002, when the appellant-wife came to her parental home along with respondent-husband, the latter told her father that he did not give quality articles in dowry and even almirah was not given. On this, father of the appellant- wife gave a sum of `5,000/- to her mother-in-law Munni Devi for purchasing almirah. On 20.11.2002, she returned to her matrimonial home at Delhi. There, she was harassed by her in-laws saying that her father promised to spend rupees ten lac in the marriage, but did not fulfill his promise. It was also pleaded by the appellant-wife in the petition that she used to do all the household chores but she was, at times, deprived of the meals. The respondent along with his parents used to keep the kitchen out of bonds for her. They asked her to wash the blankets at wee hours, as they were not happy with her for not bringing washing machine from her parental home. In December 2002, her in-laws demanded `5,00,000/- from the father of the appellant, so that they could purchase a new house after selling the old one. Since early morning of 13.03.2003, in-laws of the appellant started putting pressure on her to get their demands fulfilled through her father, who was scheduled to visit her that day. In December 2002, her in-laws demanded `5,00,000/- from the father of the appellant, so that they could purchase a new house after selling the old one. Since early morning of 13.03.2003, in-laws of the appellant started putting pressure on her to get their demands fulfilled through her father, who was scheduled to visit her that day. On 13.03.2003, mother-in-law along with sister-in-law of the appellant caught hold of her hands and brother-in-law made her to consume a toilet cleaner i.e. harpic to her stating that if she dies, people will presume the same to be a case of suicide. Her husband was a mute spectator to said incident. When harpic was administered to her, she got fainted and was taken to hospital. When she regained consciousness in the hospital, her husband and brother-in-law threatened her of dire consequences, if she dared to disclose their names before Sub Divisional Magistrate, to whom she was to give her statement. Thereafter, the appellant lodged a first information report against her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Lastly, a prayer was made that since the appellant-wife apprehended threat to her life from the respondent-husband, therefore, a decree of divorce be granted in her favour. 3. The respondent contested the petition by filing written statement, wherein he admitted the fact of his marriage with the appellant on 16.11.2002 at Dehradun. It was pleaded, interalia, in the written statement that the allegations levelled against the family members of the respondent in FIR were false. It was also averred that in fact, it was the petitioner, who deserted the respondent. Cruelty with the petitioner was also denied. 4. The trial court framed following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? ii) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to ‘streedhan’ as prayed for by her? iv) Whether the petitioner has withdrawn from the society of her husband without any sufficient reason? 5. Parties led the evidence before trial court, who, after hearing them, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the said order, present appeal was preferred. 6. iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to ‘streedhan’ as prayed for by her? iv) Whether the petitioner has withdrawn from the society of her husband without any sufficient reason? 5. Parties led the evidence before trial court, who, after hearing them, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the said order, present appeal was preferred. 6. On 27.03.2008, this appeal was decided by a Division Bench of this Court, against which the respondent husband filed Civil Appeal No. 7187 / 2010 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, who, vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2010 remitted back the matter to this Court for fresh disposal of the first appeal. 7. In compliance of said order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter was again decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.11.2010 without hearing the respondent husband, as the counsel engaged by the respondent said that she had no instructions in the matter. This Court, vide order dated 26.03.2012, allowed the recall application filed by respondent-husband, holding that it was obligatory on the part of the Court to have sent an administrative notice to the respondent-husband before dealing with the matter on merits in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment and decree dated 11th November 2010 passed in first appeal was recalled. Thereafter, on subsequent dates, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. As said earlier, the petitioner-wife filed the petition on the ground of ‘cruelty’. It was averred in the petition that the respondent-husband and his family members passed sarcastic remarks against petitioner for not bringing car, ornaments and cash in marriage. It was also averred in the petition that on 13.03.2003, at 09-9:30 A.M., plaintiff’s mother-in-law Smt. Munni Devi and sister-in-law Archana, caught hold of petitioner’s hands and her brother-in-law (devar) made her to consume harpic forcibly. Petitioner’s husband was present there, but he did not intervene. All of them wanted to kill petitioner. The petitioner became unconscious after consuming harpic. A case under Sections 498-A, 307 / 34 IPC was registered against the respondent-husband and others in police station Dabri, Delhi. In written statement, respondent-husband replied that on 13.03.2003, petitioner-wife intentionally and deliberately created such scene with ulterior motive to pressurize the respondent. All of them wanted to kill petitioner. The petitioner became unconscious after consuming harpic. A case under Sections 498-A, 307 / 34 IPC was registered against the respondent-husband and others in police station Dabri, Delhi. In written statement, respondent-husband replied that on 13.03.2003, petitioner-wife intentionally and deliberately created such scene with ulterior motive to pressurize the respondent. It was also averred in the written statement that the petitioner said that her paramour Jogendra Singh alias Tittu was living in Dehradun and she conceived a child of him. 9. P.W.1 Renu filed an affidavit in support of the averments made in the petition. In para 31 of the affidavit she stated that the respondent and his family members passed sarcastic remarks against her. They pressurized her to ask for a car and a cash of rupees one lac from her father. On refusing the same, they assaulted the petitioner. During winters, they asked her to wash the linens at early morning hours. On 13.03.2003, her brother-in-law made her to consume harpic forcibly in the presence of her husband, who did not stop them from doing the same. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law caught hold of her hands. 10. In her cross-examination, she said that her husband treated her with cruelty. She said that she was not allowed to meet anybody in her matrimonial home. They were planning to kill her. In para 67, she admitted that her father-in-law was not present when she was administered harpic. She became unconscious after consuming harpic and, she was not aware, as to who took her to hospital. She is not serving anywhere. She was not employed anywhere before her marriage. Her husband and brother-in-law (devar) threatened her of dire consequences in ICU. She got frightened and, therefore, she did not muster the courage to speak against them in her statement recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate. She denied that she herself consumed the chemical, meant for cleaning the toilets. 11. P.W.2 Kamal Swaroop, father of P.W.1 Renu, also supported plaint averments in his affidavit submitted before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. 12. Respondent-husband also filed an affidavit in support of averments made in written statement. He said that plaintiff was earning approx. `15,000/- per month, but no evidence was offered to show, as to where the lady was employed. No pay slip was filed to show the income, if any, earned by petitioner. 12. Respondent-husband also filed an affidavit in support of averments made in written statement. He said that plaintiff was earning approx. `15,000/- per month, but no evidence was offered to show, as to where the lady was employed. No pay slip was filed to show the income, if any, earned by petitioner. It was stated that after getting discharged from the hospital, the petitioner came back to her matrimonial home along with her father and after collecting all the jewellery / valuable articles, left for her parental home. Respondent denied victimization of the petitioner. Brother-in-law of petitioner never visited Orchid, Janakpuri during the period she was hospitalized and as such, never threatened her. On 13.03.2003, the petitioner herself threatened the respondent and his family members. She said that she was having a love affair with one Jogendra Singh alias Tittu of Dehradun. The petitioner pleaded for separation and extended threat to the respondent that she would commit suicide, if her demand of separation was not met. Respondent-husband, in para 30 of the affidavit, pleaded ignorance, as to where and at what time, the petitioner took harpic. They saw petitioner in state of unconsciousness and carried her to Orchid hospital, Janakpuri, Delhi in order to provide her the medical aid. 13. However, in para 52 of the cross-examination, D.W.1 Rakesh Kannojia admitted that on 13.03.2003, petitioner consumed harpic, when he was getting ready for office. In para 56 of the cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that he did not inform the police when Renu consumed harpic. 14. The general rule enacted in sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is that, no petition for a decree of divorce can be entertained till the period of one year laid down by Section 14 of the Act has elapsed. Proviso to sub section (1), however, enables the court to entertain a petition for a decree of divorce before the statutory period has expired. In the instant case, it was said, that an application under Section 14 of the Act was moved by the petitioner before learned Judge, Family Court and Judge concerned did not feel it necessary to pass a separate order, as the statutory period for filing of such case had expired by then. In the instant case, it was said, that an application under Section 14 of the Act was moved by the petitioner before learned Judge, Family Court and Judge concerned did not feel it necessary to pass a separate order, as the statutory period for filing of such case had expired by then. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was held to have been instituted after the expiry of statutory period by efflux of time. We therefore, see no reason to interfere with such order whereby the petition was entertained by the Family Court. 15. Actions of men are so diverse and infinite that it is almost impossible to give a general definition of ‘cruelty’. The petitioner must prove that the respondent treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. The present case is covered by the same. It was evidenced that the petitioner-wife is having reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will not be possible for her to live with the respondent. The circumstances vary from case to case and, at times, present sharp contrasts. All the cases before the Court must be determined on their own particular facts. In the instant case, the conduct complained of itself was per se unlawful or illegal. Demand for dowry by parents of husband with the support of the husband, is prohibited by law. The conduct of the respondent-husband in making the petitioner-wife to consume harpic had a telling effect on the mind and body of petitioner. The cruelty practiced on the petitioner was distressing and shocking. The law has no standard by which to measure the nature and degree of cruel treatment meted out to the petitioner. Sometimes single act of violence may by itself be of such a grievous and inexcusable nature to satisfy the test of cruelty. On the other hand, isolated acts of assault committed on the spur of the moment and on some real or fancied provocation may not amount to cruel treatment. ‘Cruelty’ may be gathered keeping in view the facts disclosed by evidence of the parties. An act of physical violence done to the petitioner on 13.03.2003, meets the test of cruelty, if a picture of domestic life of the spouses is surveyed as a whole. ‘Cruelty’ may be gathered keeping in view the facts disclosed by evidence of the parties. An act of physical violence done to the petitioner on 13.03.2003, meets the test of cruelty, if a picture of domestic life of the spouses is surveyed as a whole. The petitioner-wife has cogent reason, if she refuses to live with respondent-husband. Reasonable apprehension of danger to her life in the mind of petitioner can easily be inferred. Actual intention on the part of one spouse to injure the other may not be an essential factor. It is, in fact, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger in the mind of the petitioner, which is of paramount consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty or not? The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband or ideal wife, but with ‘this man and this woman’. If bitter waters are flowing, it is not necessary to inquire from which source they spring. In the instant case, the petitioner has been able to bring home the point that respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty and as such, she has no other option but to disassociate with her husband. Thus, a case of cruelty to the petitioner, leading to her divorce with respondent, is made out on the basis of evidence on record. 16. There is oath versus oath. On the one hand, there is statement on oath of petitioner and on the other hand, there is statement on oath of respondent. We will not determine as to whether the harpic was administered or the same was consumed by the petitioner on her own, or whether harpic episode at all happened or not, or if happened, who were the people behind the same, for the same is subject matter of adjudication before a criminal court. Presuming that the same was correct, will it not be ‘cruelty’ and a ground of divorce as provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 17. Even if the same is not proved before the adjudicating criminal court in due course and it comes out that the petitioner levelled unfounded allegations against the respondent and his mother, brother and sister, the conclusion would be that because of vicious atmosphere, the petitioner does not want to remain with the respondent. 18. Again, the allegations were levelled by the respondent against the petitioner’s chastity. 18. Again, the allegations were levelled by the respondent against the petitioner’s chastity. No attempt was made to ascertain the truthfulness of such allegation. When such allegations were aired in public domain, even without verification, certainly the same would be cruelty, and in such a situation, would it be advisable for the court to permit the petitioner to continue to live with the respondent in such atmosphere? 19. This Court is of the view that the court below has committed a manifest error of law in holding that a case of divorce is not made out in favour of the petitioner-wife. In our opinion, the petitioner has successfully proved her case for divorce on the ground of cruelty meted out to her by the respondent. Thus, it is held that the respondent-husband treated the petitioner with cruelty and she did not withdraw from the society of her husband for no just reason. Therefore, their marriage should be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as provided under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment under challenge is therefore, set aside to this extent. Appeal preferred by the petitioner-wife is accordingly allowed in the context of seeking relief of divorce against the respondent-husband. 20. Although, efforts were made by the petitioner to prove that her streedhan was lying with the respondent-husband, but we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept such a plea of the petitioner-wife, primarily on the ground that the list of articles enclosed with the petition were not signed by the respondent-husband or his parents and therefore, such list cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court, as the same has also not been proved. Application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cannot therefore, be allowed and is accordingly, dismissed. 21. This judgment shall not, however, prejudice or influence the course of criminal investigation and trial, if any, pending against the respondent-husband and his family members, wherein they have been arraigned as accused.