JUDGMENT G.R. Moolchandani, J. - Petitioner has challenged judgment and decree of divorce passed by Judge, Family Court, Ajmer on 04.02.2008. 2. In nutshell respondent-plaintiff preferred a petition for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking divorce on ground of cruelty. Respondent-plaintiff pleaded that attitude of his wife Smt. Kishni was peevish, she was quarrelsome and under false pretensions, she often left matrimonial house to visit her parental home, she would use indecent language and would scuffle on trifles, she resorted uttering indictment of respondent-plaintiff in dowry related false cases and maligned family atmosphere. Marriage between the couple was solemnized on 08.05.1990, on 25.12.1997 a male child was born, baby was also treated recklessly, she was reluctant to take interest in domestic chores and threatened to commit suicide. In May 1998 under the pretension of parental sickness, she left house of the respondent-plaintiff in midnight alongwith 5000/- rupees, which were spoiled by her father in consuming liquor, her father also came under the influence of liquor with a kulhadi and threatened to kill respondent-plaintiff's maternal uncle, her behavior remained unaltered till August 2003 and she again left the house of the petitioner in August 2003 pretending sickness of her father, in January 2005 she further left matrimonial house after a quarrel and on 27.07.2006 when family members of respondent-plaintiff were away to Ajmer to attend a bereavement, took away jewelry, stridhan and 7,000/- rupees despite efforts, she did not yield to return. 3. Appellant-defendant, rebutting the pleadings, has countered that she had never threatened to commit suicide, rather she performed all household chores, like an ideal Indian woman, she was subjected to demand of two lac rupees and on denial, respondent-plaintiff has become keen to marry with another girl and to exert pressure has filed untenable divorce petition, which deserves to be dismissed. 4. On pleadings of both the sides, learned court below has framed following issues :- (i) Whether non-petitioner has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce? (iii) Relief. 5. Plaintiff-respondent has got himself examined and in support, testimony of AW2 Ganeshi Lal, AW3 Kamla, AW4 Shanti and AW5 Trilok Chand have been recorded. Non petitioner-appellant Smt. Kishni has got herself examined and has produced in NAW2 Ganga Ram, NAW3 Rodu Ram and NAW4 Deva. 6. (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of divorce? (iii) Relief. 5. Plaintiff-respondent has got himself examined and in support, testimony of AW2 Ganeshi Lal, AW3 Kamla, AW4 Shanti and AW5 Trilok Chand have been recorded. Non petitioner-appellant Smt. Kishni has got herself examined and has produced in NAW2 Ganga Ram, NAW3 Rodu Ram and NAW4 Deva. 6. Heard rival contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that court below has not appreciated the evidence properly and has passed the judgment by misreading the evidence by decreeing the divorce petition. Petitioner is an innocent lady, she has not treated her husband indecently, rather has behaved like an ideal Indian woman but in order to get rid of her and to marry with another girl, a wrong petition for annulment of marriage has been preferred, which is not tenable under the law and findings of court below is not sustainable since appellant/defendant is prepared to join matrimonial consortium, it is further contended that the court below, while deciding issue of maintenance under the provisions of section 125 of CrPC, 1973 has opined that appellant was ousted by her spouse after giving her beating hence her living apart was necessitated and logical, ignoring this aspect, decree for divorce has been passed even though the appellant is ousted after giving a beating and was forced to stay away, so finding of court below be reversed and quashed after allowing the appeal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while submitting written submissions, has contended that court below has not committed any illegality in passing the decree for annulment of marriage, behaviour of appellant/defendant was quarrelsome, she never stayed with her husband's companionship regularly as a wife but often abandoned matrimonial home without consent of respondent husband, whenever attempts were made to persuade her, she threatened to commit suicide, her behaviour has remained cruel throughout, there is no infirmity in the findings of the learned court below, which deserves to be confirmed. 7. Scrutiny and examination of the testimony reflects that Jodhraj, plaintiff-respondent has admitted factum of a FIR having been registered against him vide Ex.-1 pertaining to demand of dowry and his being under custody for three days as a result of said FIR, he has stated that woman-folk of vicinity also went to fetch and persuade Smt. Kishni but no such witness has been produced in the evidence. Smt. Shanti, a neighbour has been examined but she has said that she did not go to fetch Kishni but this witness has stated that Kishni had left her matrimonial home after scuffling with son of her sister-in-law (Nanad), which has not been pleaded nor testified by any other witness of plaintiff-respondent, rather it has been pleaded that on 27.07.2006 when all had gone to Ajmer to attend death ritual, Kishni left in absence of all alongwith entire jewelry, stridhan and 7,000/- rupees but it is not evident as to with which property she allegedly abandoned the house since none was present. On the other hand, a positive evidence has emerged from the side of defendant-appellant that she was ousted after given beating. 8. Weighing of evidence discloses that testimony of defendant-appellant appears to be more creditworthy since it has come in the evidence that on several occasions she was ousted and on compromise she joined matrimonial consortium of her husband, which inspires trustworthiness since entire evidence of dual side indicate likewise. Ganga Ram NAW2, father of Smt. Kishni has unequiocally stated that she stayed with her-in-laws for three to four years but she was given beatings by her-in-laws, which constrained her to stay at her parental home but on compromise she returned to her-in-laws' home but they again subjected her to beatings and ousted her. Ganga Ram NAW2, has also stated that his daughter was maltreated, tortured and was ousted, so she is staying with him, he has further stated that in event if plaintiff-respondent is prepared to take her and if her daughter is accepted there, then he is ready to send her. Smt. Kishni NAW1, has stated that plaintiff had subjected her to torture and ousted her, she was forced to stay at her parental home for six to seven years and after a compromise, she was taken to stay with her in-laws for fifteen months, where she was beaten and was ousted, so she was forced to stay in her parental home for fourteen to fifteen months, she has also stated that defendant-appellant does not want to keep her and Kishor aging 101/2 years, their son, lives with her. She has further stated that should she be permitted to live in matrimonial consortium, she is prepared to join, in cross-examination she has refuted allegations of stealing 5,000/- rupees and allegedly decamped alongwith, she has reiterated that she has registered a true case against her husband pertaining to demand of dowry. Rodu Ram NAW3, a neighbour has also stated that Kishni used to stay with her in-laws and also visited her parental home but plaintiff is not prepared to fetch her now, so she is forced to stay in her parental home. He has also stated that plaintiff is not ready to keep her. Deva NAW4, another neighbour has stated that his field is adjacent to the field of Kishni's father and Kishni was subjected to cruelty and beatings, she was frequently ousted by her in-laws, once after a compromise she had joined her matrimonial home but was subsequently subjected to ill-treatment, so compelled to come back and is still staying in her parental home, in cross-examination he has further stated that at the time of compromise he had also negotiated. 9. Plaintiff-respondent AW1 Jodhraj has stated that he solemnized her marriage with Kishni 18 years back, repeating the pleadings, he has stated that Kishni left in July 2006, when they were away, he has admitted that she lodged a dowry related FIR against him so, he had to remain confined for three days and has further stated that Ex.-1 FIR was lodged by her and said that he is not prepared to live alongwith her wife and intends to take divorce. AW2 Ganeshi Lal, maternal uncle (Mama) of Jodhraj has stated that in 2006 when his mother had died then on 27th she was taken away by some persons alongwith belongings, in cross-examination he has admittedly stated that the couple was residing at Siradhna and his nephew seldom visited him. AW2 Ganeshi Lal, maternal uncle (Mama) of Jodhraj has stated that in 2006 when his mother had died then on 27th she was taken away by some persons alongwith belongings, in cross-examination he has admittedly stated that the couple was residing at Siradhna and his nephew seldom visited him. Smt. Kamla, mother-in-law of Kishni has stated that Kishni got her son confined behind the bars for three days and she apprehends her detention, so they are not prepared to keep her, she could kill her or may cause her behind the bars, in cross-examination, while refuting suggestion, she has stated that they have got water connection installed in their house and the water was harnessed by Smt. Kishni and once there was a time when she used to cook for whole of the family and make us dine altogether, this very narration uttered by Smt. Kamla, mother-in-law of appellant-defendant Kishni, reflects that Kishni was accustomed arranging water-fill for whole of the family and used to cook and serve meal to entire family, which is suggestive enough that Smt. Kishni has rendered amicable domestic chores to whole of the family. It is not disputed that a criminal case pertaining to demand of dowry, is sub-judice against plaintiff-respondent Jodhraj, which indicates that contentions alleged in the FIR have been found trustworthy by the investigating agency. 10. The matter could be looked at from another angle as well since it is indisputable that learned court below, while deciding case No.220/2006 Smt. Kishni & Another vs. Jodhraj under section 125 of CrPC, 1973 on 01.02.2008, i.e. three days prior to the judgment impugned, has held that living apart of Smt. Kishni was proper and reasonable since she was ousted after giving a beating and she had got reason to live separately. 11. Scanning of entire afore-discussed evidence clearly results in deciding issue No.1 against plaintiff-respondent, which has wrongly been decided against appellant-defendant by the court below. Mother-in-law of Kishni, Smt. Kamla AW3, has categorically stated that her daughter-in-law Kishni used to harness water for the family and also used to prepare meal for whole of the family, which was used by whole of the family. 12. A sense of security and befitting bridal grace is imperative to facilitate bridal stay in the husband's house amongst his family members. 12. A sense of security and befitting bridal grace is imperative to facilitate bridal stay in the husband's house amongst his family members. Giving beatings and regular torture with persistent demand of dowry could be fatal and deterrent for healthy nuptial relation. A bride suspecting threat to her life and frequently compelled to leave matrimonial house after beatings, couldn't be expected to stay her presence in matrimonial home. In the case under hand, Smt. Kishni and her father have candidly stated that Smt. Kishni is ready to join matrimonial consortium, if she is taken and if Jodhraj is ready to keep her alongwith. 13. Expression of cruelty has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. 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 foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's 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 the bond. 14. The question of cruelty in matrimonial relationship has been dealt in great detail in celebrated English case Gollins vs. Gollins, (1964) A.C. 644 . The House of Lords has in great, depth examined this issue. In this case, the question which arose for consideration of the House of Lords was nature of matrimonial cruelty. The court made the distinction between unequivocal and equivocal conduct and the court has laid down as under:- "A distinction can be drawn between cases involving "unequivocal" conduct, which is conduct which clearly constitutes cruelty, and those involving "equivocal" conduct, conduct which may in certain circumstances amount to cruelty and in other circumstances not do so. The cruelty alleged here is plainly in the second category. There is no fundamental distinction between cruelty which gives rise to grounds for judicial separation and that which gives rise to grounds for divorce. The cruelty alleged here is plainly in the second category. There is no fundamental distinction between cruelty which gives rise to grounds for judicial separation and that which gives rise to grounds for divorce. The principles so far evolved from the authorities serve well enough in deciding cases in the first category, but there is no other guidance where the conduct complained of may be described as negative, or indirect, or not aimed at the other spouse or as unaggressive." In another English case, Evans vs. Evans, 616; [1950] 2 All E.R. 398 , C.A., Sir William Scott (Lord Stowell), on the approach to be adopted in cases of cruelty observed : ".... it is the duty of courts...... to keep ...........[the definition of cruelty] extremely strict. The causes must be grave and weighty, and such as "show an absolute impossibility that the duties of the married life can be discharged". In Westall vs. Westall, (1949) 65 T.L.R. 337 , C.A., Denning, L.J. said : "ALTHOUGH malignity is not an essential element of cruelty............nevertheless intention is an element in this sense, that there must be conduct which is, in some way, aimed by one person at the other." Reliance is placed on this further passage from Denning LJ.'s judgment : "THE conduct of the habitual drunkard, the gambler, the criminal or the profligate may cause his wife to break down in health but it is not cruelty unless combined with some conduct which is aimed at her, as, for example, when her justifiable remonstrances provoke unjust resentment on his part directed at her." 15. In Gollins vs. Gollins, while concluding the case, the court observed as under:- "(A) Whilst the courts should pay regard to changing social conditions, they should be alert not to open the door too wide, so that incompatibility of temperament and every defect of behaviour comes to be regarded as grounds for relief under the guise of cruelty. (B) Checks and brakes by way of enunciated principles are needed, such as that to constitute cruelty the conduct complained of must be grave and weighty and that not all matrimonial misconduct which results in injury to health amounts to cruelty. (B) Checks and brakes by way of enunciated principles are needed, such as that to constitute cruelty the conduct complained of must be grave and weighty and that not all matrimonial misconduct which results in injury to health amounts to cruelty. (C) The criteria and principles to be applied by the courts should have some measure of uniformity so that there is some degree of probability in the law known to the public and those who have to advise them. One requirement should be that there must be actual or apprehended injury to health. In what has been described as the equivocal area there ordinarily should be an actual intent to inflict pain." In Dastane vs. Dastane, Chandrachud, J. speaking for the Bench held, "that where an allegation of cruelty is made, the inquiry has to be "whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent." The learned Judge held further "it is not necessary, as under the English law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause "danger" to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly, danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension of it is a higher requirement than a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with the other..... But under Section 10(1)(b), harm or injury to health, reputation, the working career or the like, would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty. Plainly, what we must determine is not whether the petitioner has proved the charge of cruelty having regard to the principles of English law, but whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent." 16. Smt. Kishni has been awarded maintenance under section 125 of CrPC, 1973 by the same Family Court, her dowry related case pertaining to Section 498-A IPC is sub-judice against her husband. Smt. Kishni has been awarded maintenance under section 125 of CrPC, 1973 by the same Family Court, her dowry related case pertaining to Section 498-A IPC is sub-judice against her husband. Under these circumstances it cannot be deemed that she is willfully staying away or have ever perperated any threat or alleged cruelty against her husband and members of her in-laws family, rather her mother-in-law Kamla has stated that she was comfortable and used to fill water for whole of the family and also prepared meal for whole of the family, once when resided together. Matrimonial relations cannot be snatched away on the basis of unfounded, flimsy averments. 17. In the present case under hand, learned Family Judge has failed to scrutinize allegations of the respondent-plaintiff and in this view of matter the judgment and decree passed by learned Family Judge needs to be interfered with. 18. Thus, the appeal succeeds and impugned judgment and decree dated 04.02.2008 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer is quashed and set aside and petition seeking divorce stands dismissed, accordingly.