Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1751 (HP)

Anurag Sharma v. Pratibha Sharma

2014-11-26

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.2014, rendered by the learned District Judge, Kullu, in HMP No. 19 of 2011 (23 of 2012) 499 of 2013. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has filed the petition under Section 13 (1) (i) & 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce against the respondent. According to the appellant, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 3.6.2010 at Sauli Khad, Mandi, H.P., according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies. The appellant was posted as Labour Officer at Bilaspur till 5.11.2010. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kullu. The marriage was arranged by the parents, Uncle and Aunt of the appellant. The appellant was disowned by his father from his movable and immovable property on 26.7.2005 by publishing a notice in the newspaper in Hindi Daily 'Dainik Bhaskar’. The appellant told the respondent not to have any contact with his father, however, despite this, the respondent visited the father of the appellant. Once, the father of the appellant had come to Bilaspur and had stayed there for three days, the appellant raised objection. The respondent took side with the father of the appellant. The respondent used to talk with the father of the appellant on telephone ignoring the warning of the appellant. In the month of August, 2010, the respondent insisted to go to Shimla to meet his father. The appellant never gave consent to the respondent. However, respondent did not pay any heed and went to Shimla. The respondent stayed with the father of the appellant for a week and he offered her costly gifts. The respondent used to call him “Soordass, divorcee and outdated person”. He even demanded pornographic films and beer to drink from the appellant. He joined in the month of November, 2010 as Labour Officer at Kullu. The respondent instead of coming to Kullu went to Shimla without informing him. On 19/20.5.2011, the appellant had to attend the training camp at HIPA, Shimla and at that time the respondent asked the appellant that she also wants to accompany the appellant to Shimla. The appellant booked a room in Hotel at Shimla. The respondent instead of coming to Kullu went to Shimla without informing him. On 19/20.5.2011, the appellant had to attend the training camp at HIPA, Shimla and at that time the respondent asked the appellant that she also wants to accompany the appellant to Shimla. The appellant booked a room in Hotel at Shimla. However, after reaching Shimla, the respondent refused to stay with the appellant in hotel and went to Vikas Nagar. The father of the appellant was residing at Vikas Nagar. The appellant stayed in hotel all alone. On 21.5.2011, when he went to the house of his father to bring back the respondent, he saw the respondent and his father in a compromising position. The respondent was living in adultery. In the month of July, 2011, the respondent had insisted to go to Jaipur to meet her friend Kumar Gaurav. The appellant objected to it. The respondent left the company of the appellant and even attempted to commit suicide. On 28.8.2011, the appellant was staying at Hotel Sandhya Palace, District Kullu. In the morning his father and parents of the respondent, her sister and Uncle came to Hotel and used abusive language. They gave beatings to him. He contacted police and reached Police Station Bhunter. He filed a complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Kullu. On 23.8.2011 at 8:00 PM, two persons at the instance of the respondent had threatened him with dire consequences. On 6.9.2011, after the filing of the complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Kullu, both the parties were called in the Chamber by the learned CJM, Kullu for amicable settlement. However, the behavior of the respondent did not change. 3. The petition was contested by the respondent. She admitted the marriage between the parties. She also admitted that it was the second marriage of the appellant. He had divorced his first wife. She denied the allegations contained in the petition. She denied that the relationship between the appellant and his father were strained. She denied that she was having any illicit relations with the father of the appellant. She also denied that the father of the appellant has visited house at Bilaspur with the consent of the appellant. The appellant used to call her 'Charitrahin'. She admitted that on 19/20.5.2011, she had gone to Shimla with the appellant. She denied that the appellant has booked hotel at Shimla. She also denied that the father of the appellant has visited house at Bilaspur with the consent of the appellant. The appellant used to call her 'Charitrahin'. She admitted that on 19/20.5.2011, she had gone to Shimla with the appellant. She denied that the appellant has booked hotel at Shimla. The appellant himself has taken her to the house of his father. They stayed in the house of the father of the appellant. She specifically denied that on 21.5.2011, the appellant had found her in compromising position with the father of the appellant. The appellant has settled the earlier dispute with his first wife and paid Rs. 3,00,000/-. 4. The appellant filed the replication. The learned District Judge, Kullu dismissed the petition on 11.3.2014. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the learned District Judge, Kullu, has misconstrued the evidence. According to him, his client has proved that the respondent has treated his client with cruelty and was living a adulterous life. On the other hand, Ms. Reeta Goswami, Advocate, has supported the judgment dated 11.3.2014. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record and judgment dated 11.3.2014 carefully. 7. PW-1 Dharmesh Kumar has proved e-mail Ext. PW-1/A. PW-2 Jeevan Ram, deposed that he was not aware about the strained relations between the husband and wife. It was their private life. He was not in a position to comment on the same. PW-3 Tenzin Bodh deposed that on 20.8.2011, he has gone to hotel Sandhya Palace at 7:30 PM. He enquired from the Manager of the hotel as to in which room the appellant was staying. He came to know that he was staying in Room No. 106. When he went to room No. 106, he saw the quarrel has taken place. Two ladies were standing outside the door. They have not permitted him to go inside. There were two persons inside. One was very tall and the second was of short statured. The name of one person was Duni Chand. The tall man had caught hold of the appellant and the short stature man was hitting the appellant with his kicks and fist blows. One of the person was the father of the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he has not apprised the police about the incident seen by him. 8. The tall man had caught hold of the appellant and the short stature man was hitting the appellant with his kicks and fist blows. One of the person was the father of the appellant. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he has not apprised the police about the incident seen by him. 8. The appellant has led his evidence by filing Ext. PW-4/A. He has reiterated the averments contained in the petition in his affidavit. He deposed about the marriage which has taken place between the parties on 3.6.2010. There is reference to his posting at Bilaspur till 5.11.2010. He was disowned by his father from the movable and immovable property on 26.7.2005. He was married with Smt. Monika Sharma. He got divorce by mutual consent. His father has visited Bilaspur without his wish. He objected to the same. He had gone to Shimla with his wife in the month of August, 2010 without his consent. She came back to Bilaspur on 8.8.2010. She brought costly gifts. She used to call him “Soordass, divorcee and outdated person”. He joined his duty as Labour Officer at Kullu on 6.11.2010. He had come to Shimla on 19-20.5.2011 to attend training at HIPA. The respondent refused to stay with him and went to Vikas Nagar. When he went to the house of his father on 21.5.2011 to bring her back, he caught his father and the respondent in the compromising position. She wanted to go to Jaipur to see her friend Kumar Gaurav. She used to quarrel with him. She has also tried to commit suicide. The respondent, his father-in-law, brother-in-law and father misbehaved with him on 20.8.2011 at hotel Sandhya Palace, Shamshi. He filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M., Kullu on 30.8.2011. He did not know whether all the members of the family were alive or not. He did not know when his father retired. He also admitted that when he was posted as Labour Officer at Bilaspur, the respondent stayed with him. According to him, the house of his father could be at Vikas Nagar. He admitted that on 20.8.2011, his parents and mother-in-law and father-in-law had come to Sandhya Palace Hotel to settle the matter. He did not know that his mother was involved in the incident. When his father has offered alto car, he was not present on the spot. According to him, the house of his father could be at Vikas Nagar. He admitted that on 20.8.2011, his parents and mother-in-law and father-in-law had come to Sandhya Palace Hotel to settle the matter. He did not know that his mother was involved in the incident. When his father has offered alto car, he was not present on the spot. He has also submitted representations to the Chief Justice of the High Court and DGP, Himachal Pradesh. 9. The respondent has appeared as RW-2. She has led her evidence by filing RW-2/A. She has admitted the marriage with the appellant on 3.6.2010. She remained with her husband at Bilaspur. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kullu on 6.11.2010. He has called her characterless. This fact was brought to the notice of her mother-in-law. She was beaten up by the appellant. She has to file a case against the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the month of December, 2011. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were the witnesses. The matter was decided in her favour on 5.10.2012. The appellant has not filed an appeal against the order dated 5.10.2012. He has sent the complaints to the Chief Justice of the High Court and DGP on 5/6.9.2011. The appellant has beaten her. She was saved by her mother-in-law. The appellant has leveled false and baseless allegations against her that she was caught in compromising position with her father-in-law. She has never uttered words “Soordass, divorcee and outdated person” to him. She has never told him to go to Jaipur. The father of the appellant has never given her any costly gifts. 10. RW-3 Rajinder Kumar has led his evidence by filing Ext. RW- 3/A. According to him, 8 years back, he was working as Manager in Hotel Sandhya Palace. Anurag Sharma has stayed in room No. 106 from 18.8.2011 to 20.8.2011. No altercation has taken place in the hotel. 11. RW-4 Raj Kumar has tendered his evidence by filing RW-4/A. According to the averments contained in the affidavit, the appellant is his son and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 3.6.2010. He was posted as Labour Officer at Bilaspur and thereafter at Kullu. His wife Santosh told him on 7.7.2011 that appellant has called his wife characterless. They have visited the hotel Sandhaya Palace on 20.8.2011. He was posted as Labour Officer at Bilaspur and thereafter at Kullu. His wife Santosh told him on 7.7.2011 that appellant has called his wife characterless. They have visited the hotel Sandhaya Palace on 20.8.2011. The appellant has mis-behaved with the members of the family. The appellant used to beat respondent. He has also broken the T.V. He and his wife were witnesses in the case filed under the Protection to Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The matter was decided in favour of the respondent on 5.10.2012. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the first wife was divorced by the appellant by mutual consent. He was also pushed when he tried to save his wife. 12. The appellant's mother has appeared as RW-5. She has led the evidence by filing affidavit RW-5/A. it is stated in the affidavit that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 3.6.2010. Her daughter-in-law had told her on 7.7.2011 that the appellant has called her characterless. She also deposed the manner in which all the family members had gone to hotel Sandhya palace on 20.8.2011 and the appellant has misbehaved with her. She was one of the witnesses in a case filed by the respondent against the appellant under the Protection to Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 13. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove, is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 3.6.2010 at Mandi. The appellant was posted at Bilaspur. The respondent stayed with him. The appellant was transferred to Kullu as Labour Officer. The appellant has called the respondent characterless. He was reprimanded by his mother. He had also misbehaved with the members of his family and respondent at Sandhaya Palace Hotel. The appellant has made reckless and irresponsible allegations against the respondent. The appellant has gone to the extent of leveling false allegations without any proof that the respondent was living adulterous life with his father. The appellant had come to Shimla with his wife. He insisted his wife to stay in the hotel. The wife went to Vikas Nagar where the parents were staying. His mother was also staying in the house. It is not believable that the father-in-law would commit such a heinous act with his daughter-in-law in the presence of his wife and would keep the door open. He insisted his wife to stay in the hotel. The wife went to Vikas Nagar where the parents were staying. His mother was also staying in the house. It is not believable that the father-in-law would commit such a heinous act with his daughter-in-law in the presence of his wife and would keep the door open. According to his statement, in crossexamination the house of the father could be at Vikas Nagar. He has not led any evidence to prove that his wife was provided with any gifts by the appellant's father. The parents of the appellant and the respondent have tried to settle the matter amicably. They have visited the Sandhya Palace Hotel. He, instead of mending his ways has misbehaved with the mother. His mother was saved by the appellant's father. He is a divorcee. His marriage was solemnized with one Monika Sharma. He has obtained divorce by mutual consent. It has come in the statement of respondent's witnesses that appellant used to administer beatings to respondent. The respondent was constrained to file a complaint against the appellant under the Protection to Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The same was decided in favour of the respondent on 5.10.2012. The appellant's father and mother had appeared as witnesses against the appellant at Mandi. He has not filed any appeal against the order dated 5.10.2012. He has also gone to the extent of making false complaints against the respondent and the family members before the Chief Justice of this Court and DGP, Himachal Pradesh. No action was ever taken on these complaints. 14. Now, as far as disowning of the appellant by his father is concerned, by issuing notice in the daily edition of vernacular newspaper, no consequential steps were ever taken of divesting him of movable or immovable property. He has made false allegations that his wife tried to go to Jaipur. She has denied the suggestion that she has adulterous relations with the father of the appellant. It was not expected from a person working as Labour Officer to make such reckless allegations against his father and wife. The appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs rather, he has treated the respondent with cruelty by making reckless allegations and irresponsible statement against his family members and his wife. It was not expected from a person working as Labour Officer to make such reckless allegations against his father and wife. The appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs rather, he has treated the respondent with cruelty by making reckless allegations and irresponsible statement against his family members and his wife. The wife while appearing as RW-2, has categorically denied that she has ever called him “Soordass, divorcee and outdated person”. The appellant had been giving beatings to the respondent. He was told to mend his ways by the mother-in-law of the respondent. He has also broken the T.V. as per the statement of his father. 15. The case of the respondent has been fully supported by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. The appellant deposed that on 19-20.5.2011 he booked the room in Hotel at Shimla. He did not name the hotel where he had booked the room. The case of the appellant is that his father has disowned him. Thus, there was no occasion for him to visit his father. The allegations like calling the respondent as 'Charitrahin’ has definitely traumatized her. 16. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G.Dastane vrs. Mrs. S. Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 , have held that Section 23 confers on the Court the power to pass a decree if it is “satisfied” on matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of the Section. It is true that the proceedings under the Act being essentially of a civil nature, the word “satisfied” in Section 23 must mean “satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities” and not “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt”. The 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. Their lordships have held as under: “24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be estabilshed if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Their lordships have held as under: “24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be estabilshed if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considersits existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus 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. The 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. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where. the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue"(1) ; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear" (2). But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a promote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of robabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged. 26. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a promote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of robabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged. 26. Neither section 10 of the Act which enumerates the grounds on which a petition for judicial separation may be presented nor section 23 which governs the jurisdiction of the court to pass a decree in any proceeding under the Act requires that the petitioner must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 23 confers on the court the power to pass a decree if it is "satisfied" on matters mentioned in clauses(a) to (e) of the section. Considering that proceedings under the Act are essentially of a civil nature, the word "satisfied" must mean "satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities" and not "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt". Section 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases. 28. In England, a view was at one time taken that the petitioner in a matrimonial petition must establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt but in Blyth v. Blyth(P), the House of Lords held by a majority that so far as the grounds of divorce or the bars to divorce like connivance or condonation are concerned, "the case; like any civil case, may be proved by a preponderance of probability". The High Court of Austraila in Wright v. Wright (2) , has also taken the view that "the civil and not the criminal standard of persuasion applies to matrimonial causes, including issues of adultery". The High Court was therefore in error in holding that the petitioner must establish the charge of cruelty "beyond reasonable doubt". The High Court adds that "This must be in accordance with the law of evidence", but we are not clear as to the implications of this observation.” 17. The appellant in the present case has failed to bring his case within the ambit of preponderance of probabilities. He has not led any direct or corroborative evidence to substantiate the plea of cruelty and adultery. 18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 have explained the term “cruelty” as under: “4. He has not led any direct or corroborative evidence to substantiate the plea of cruelty and adultery. 18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 have explained the term “cruelty” 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 a 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 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. 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. 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. 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, [1966] 2 All E.R. 257 (259) "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/realm of cruelty.” 19. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , have enumerated some instances of human behaviour, which may be important in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty, as under: “98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other Courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of 'mental cruelty' within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 20. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Manisha Tyagi vs. Deepak Kumar reported in 2010(1) Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 451, as under: “24. This is no longer the required standard. Now it would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonable be expected to put up with it. The conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause a reasonable apprehension that would be harmful or injurious to continue the cohabitation with the other spouse. Therefore, to establish cruelty it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. However, continued ill-treatment cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to the other may lead to an inference of cruelty. However, in this case even with aforesaid standard both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had accepted that the conduct of the wife did not amount to cruelty of such a nature to enable the husband to obtain a decree of divorce.” 21. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Ravi Kumar vs. Julumidevi reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476 , as under: “19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it ma be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it ma be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial case can be of infinite variety – it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and word. That possible explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial case are never closed. 21. This Court is reminded of what was said by Lord Reid in Gollins v. Gollins about judging cruelty in matrimonial cases. The pertinent observations are (AC p.660) “.. In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with the reasonable man as we are in cases of negligence. We are dealing with this man and this woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we make about them the better. In cruelty cases one can hardly ever even start with a presumption that the parties are reasonable people, because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both the spouses think and behave as reasonable people.” 22. “About the changing perception of cruelty in matrimonial cases, this Court observed in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi at AIR p. 123, para 5 of the report: (SCC p.108, para 5) “5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been (a) 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 stigmatized 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. A set of facts stigmatized 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.” 22. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Pankaj Mahajan vs. Dimple Alias Kajal reported in (2011) 12 SCC 1 , as under “36. From the pleadings and evidence, the following instances of cruelty are specifically pleaded and stated. They are: i. Giving repeated threats to commit suicide and even trying to commit suicide on one occasion by jumping from the terrace. ii. Pushing the appellant from the staircase resulting into fracture of his right forearm. iii. Slapping the appellant and assaulting him. iv. Misbehaving with the colleagues and relatives of the appellant causing humiliation and embarrassment to him. v. Not attending to household chores and not even making food for the appellant, leaving him to fend for himself. vi. Not taking care of the baby. vii. Insulting the parents of the appellant and misbehaving with them. viii. Forcing the appellant to live separately from his parents. ix. Causing nuisance to the landlord's family of the appellant, causing the said landlord to force the appellant to vacate the premises. x. Repeated fits of insanity, abnormal behaviour causing great mental tension to the appellant. xi. Always quarreling with the appellant and abusing him. xii. Always behaving in an abnormal manner and doing weird acts causing great mental cruelty to the appellant.” 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288 as under: “22. The expression 'cruelty' has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 28. The expression 'cruelty' has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 28. In Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582 it has been held that mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Mental cruelty cannot be established by direct evidence and 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. The facts and circumstances are to be assessed emerging from the evidence on record and thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to the conduct of the other.” 24. In the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent or she was living adulterous life with his father. These allegations are rather baseless. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.