JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant appeal has been filed by appellant against judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan H.P. in HMA Petition No. 27-HMA/3 of 2007, whereby the petition of the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), has been allowed and marriage between the parties has been ordered to be dissolved by decree of divorce. 2. Respondent (husband) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce against appellant (wife), on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged that the wife had failed to maintain cordial relations with the husband and his family members despite the fact that wife was treated with utmost love and affection in matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the wife was headstrong, quarrelsome and cruel in nature, who created scenes in and outside the house on petty matters. As per husband, the wife used to receive phone calls from her male friends and at such moment she would not allow the husband to remain nearby. On being advised in this behalf, wife became more adamant and started raising quarrels. She use to insult, humiliate and torture husband and his mother in the presence of friends, neighbors and relatives. 3. It was further alleged that the wife refused to cook meals and also to perform matrimonial obligations. The mother and brothers of wife were informed about her behavior but they instead of counselling the wife, started supporting her and even went to the extent of instigating and provoking her against the husband and his family members. 4. As per husband, the wife was so arrogant that on their honeymoon trip to Kashmir, she did not carry the clothes of husband in the baggage. The wife was also accused of maltreating the child born to the parties by not providing her breastfeed. While narrating the incidents of humiliation, husband alleged that once he accompanied the wife to Nahan to attend some religious function but he was completely ignored and he had to return on the very next day, whereas the wife returned after about eight days. It was further alleged that a son was born to the wife at Nahan. The husband intended to visit Nahan in the company of his sister to celebrate the occasion but the sister of husband was not allowed to visit Nahan. It was further alleged that a son was born to the wife at Nahan. The husband intended to visit Nahan in the company of his sister to celebrate the occasion but the sister of husband was not allowed to visit Nahan. An incident, where the wife allegedly manhandled the petitioner and his mother was also highlighted. The wife was alleged to have abandoned the matrimonial home since 18.08.2005 along with minor son. 5. The wife contested the allegations made in the petition and levelled certain counter allegations. It was alleged that the husband and his family had been arrogant right from the beginning. The marriage ceremony in the first instance was settled to be held at Chandigarh. The wife and her family members made all the arrangements but at the last moment, the husband and his family members insisted for the marriage to be solemnized at Nahan. The family of the wife had to make all arrangements again. They were put to extra expenses as they had to arrange a hotel at Nahan for solemnization of marriage. In counter, it was also alleged that after the marriage, the wife was regularly coerced by the husband and the family members to ask her brothers to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in dowry to the husband. The allegation of being cruel to the husband or his family members were specifically denied. It was also denied that the child was not looked after by the wife. It was alleged that after the wife gave birth to her son, at Nahan, none from the family of appellant visited that place. Since, no one came from the family of the husband to Nahan after birth of child, the wife and her son visited Jallandhar of their own on 22.05.2005 to see the husband and his family members. The wife was regularly illtreated by her husband and his family members under the garb of coercing her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- in dowry. As the sufferings of the wife at the hands of her in-laws kept on increasing day-by-day she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and to start living with her brothers and mother at Nahan. The wife also made compliant against the husband and his family members at Nahan, under Section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. She also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the husband. 6. The wife also made compliant against the husband and his family members at Nahan, under Section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. She also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the husband. 6. In rejoinder, the husband while denying the contents of reply filed by the wife, alleged that the complaint filed by the wife against husband and his family members at Nahan was dismissed by the Court. He further alleged that the act of wife in prosecuting the husband and his family members on false allegations was another act of cruelty faced by them at the hands of wife. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- (i) Whether the respondent-wife neglected the petitioner without just cause and has also treated him with cruelty, as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioner wants the advantage of his own wrong, as alleged ? (iii) Relief. 8. Learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan decided issue No. 1 in affirmative and issue No. 2 in negative. In result, the petition was allowed and the marriage between the husband and wife was ordered to be annulled by decree of divorce. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. The facts which are not in dispute can be noticed as under:- (i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. on 23.04.2004. (ii) A son was born to the parties on 04.04.2005 at Nahan. (iii) The parties are living separately since 18. 08.2005. (iv) The petition was instituted by the husband on 03.09.2007. (v) The husband, his mother and sister were prosecuted for offence under Section 498-A of IPC in Criminal Case No. 32/2 of 2006, on the complaint of wife and were acquitted, vide judgment dated 21.05.2007, passed in Criminal Case No. 32/2 of 2006 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour at Nahan. 11. Learned District Judge found none of the allegations levelled by the husband against wife as proved. The evidence led by the husband in order to prove his case has been considered to be interested and biased. In alternative, learned District Judge observed that even if such allegations were presumed to be correct those were mere incidences of daily wear and tear of life which did not constitute cruelty. The evidence led by the husband in order to prove his case has been considered to be interested and biased. In alternative, learned District Judge observed that even if such allegations were presumed to be correct those were mere incidences of daily wear and tear of life which did not constitute cruelty. Learned District Judge further observed that the parties did not give each other sufficient time for understanding and settling their married life. Nonetheless, learned District Judge allowed the petition by holding the wife guilty of cruelty on the ground that she had wrongly prosecuted the husband, his mother and sister for a criminal offence, which resulted in their acquittal. Another fact that weighed with learned District Judge to allow the petition of husband was that the wife, vide document Ext. PX, had threatened to commit suicide. The above two facts were considered sufficient for the husband to entertain a continuous threat to his safety and security from the wife. 12. Noticeably, the husband has not laid any challenge to those finding returned by learned District Judge, which negated the allegation of cruelty levelled by the husband against wife. On the other hand, the wife has assailed the impugned decree which the has been granted in favour of the husband against the wife on above noticed two grounds. 13. The question which arises for determination by this Court is whether the learned District Judge was right in holding that the conduct of wife in prosecuting the husband and his family members for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC singly or coupled with her threat to commit suicide were sufficient to attract the mischief as contemplated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act? 14. In my considered view, once learned District Judge had found all other allegations of husband against wife to be merely routine wear and tear of life and not sufficient to prove cruelty against wife, the facts that the husband and his family members were prosecuted on the complaint of wife and that wife had once threatened to commit suicide could not have been seen in isolation. Learned District Judge not only found the allegations levelled by the husband not proved, such allegations were held insufficient to constitute cruelty. One fact that is clearly suggested in the case that the relations between husband and wife did not remain cordial. Learned District Judge not only found the allegations levelled by the husband not proved, such allegations were held insufficient to constitute cruelty. One fact that is clearly suggested in the case that the relations between husband and wife did not remain cordial. That being so, filing of complaint by the wife against her husband and his family members under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be said to be unrelated with other aspects of their life. 15. The criminal case against husband and his family members at the instance of wife was tried and decided at Nahan. The judgment Ext. PA, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, reveals that the main ground of acquittal was the lack of jurisdiction found by said Court in itself in deciding the matter. It was held that the allegations of cruelty as made out from the facts of the case pertained to the jurisdiction of Jalandhar Court. Thus, the acquittal of the husband and his family members was on technical grounds. 16. Similarly, the fact that the wife had once threatened to commit suicide cannot be held by itself to be an act of cruelty sufficient to grant divorce. It had to be seen in what context and under what circumstances such a threat, if any, was extended. 17. In my considered view, the jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce under Section 13 of HMA is circumscribed by the fulfilment of requirements of section 23 of the Act ibid. Section 23 of The Hindu Marriage Act reads as under : “23. 17. In my considered view, the jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce under Section 13 of HMA is circumscribed by the fulfilment of requirements of section 23 of the Act ibid. Section 23 of The Hindu Marriage Act reads as under : “23. Decree in proceedings.—(1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that; (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and; (b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and [(bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, and; (c) [the petition (not being a petition presented under section 11)] is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, and (d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding, and (e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly…..” 18. In the instant case, the wife has throughout contested the allegation of the husband. She has also alleged that husband has taken benefit of his own wrong. Learned District Judge has not returned any specific findings as to proof of counter allegations levelled by the wife and its effect, if any, on the aspect of the matter in the context of Section 23 (1) of the Act. 19. The impugned judgment is otherwise completely non-speaking on material aspects of the case. Learned District Judge has failed to discuss the material evidence on record which led him to arrive at conclusions, as noticed above. 20. 19. The impugned judgment is otherwise completely non-speaking on material aspects of the case. Learned District Judge has failed to discuss the material evidence on record which led him to arrive at conclusions, as noticed above. 20. Learned District Judge being the trial court was required to assess each and every relevant fact available on record and its application as evidence for arriving at some conclusion. However, in the instant case it appears that the learned District Judge has just hastened to jump to the conclusions without providing any reasons therefor. Needless to say surmises and conjectures cannot substitute the logical reasons. 21. The non-rendering of reasons by learned District Judge has rendered impugned judgment and decree vulnerable for the reason that the conclusions drawn by learned District Judge are not supported by any reasons. 22. Learned counsel for the husband has raised a contention that the parties have now been residing separately since August, 2005. More than eighteen years have elapsed and they have not been able to join hands together. He submitted that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and as such, on this ground also, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita, (2023) SCC Online SC 497 and Roopa Soni Vs. Kamal Narayan Soni, (2023) SCC Online SC 1127 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered irretrievably marriage as one of the manifestations of cruelty under section 13 of the Act. 23. In my considered view, the ratio as laid down in aforesaid judgments cannot have application in the facts of the instant case for the reason that before coming to a conclusion that there is an irretrievable break down of marriage, there has to be sufficient material with the Court to assume such hypothesis. Such material, as held above, is clearly deficient and for such purpose the entire matter is required to be looked at afresh by learned trial court. 24. In light of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan H.P. in HMA petition No. 27-HMA/3 of 2007, is set aside. 24. In light of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmour at Nahan H.P. in HMA petition No. 27-HMA/3 of 2007, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan to decide the matter afresh in accordance law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties and observations made hereinabove. 25. The appeal, is accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 26. Parties are directed to remain present in the Court of learned District Judge Sirmour at Nahan on 15. 5.2024. Records be sent back forthwith with a copy of this judgment.