Smt. Bharathi V. Rao vs Sri Pramod G. Rao

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—This appeal is filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted against her by the learned Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in M.C. No. 1953/2007 dated 19.04.2012. The respondent herein is her husband and he was petitioner in the said case. Parties will be referred to as the petitioner and respondent as per their ranking in the Trial Court. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.02.2005 at Bangalore, in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. Their marriage is registered before the Registrar of Marriages, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.

The petitioner-husband chose to file a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as contemplated u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act.

The said petition came to be resisted by the wife i.e., the appellant herein by filing detailed objections denying all the material allegations of cruelty.

Petitioner himself has been examined as P.W. 1 and his mother has been examined as P.W. 2. In all 45 documents have been got marked on his behalf. Per contra, the respondent-wife has been examined as RW1 and 26 exhibits have been marked on her behalf. After hearing the arguments and perusing the evidence placed on record, the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, has chosen to allow the petition and thereby he has granted a decree of divorce. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

The instances alleged by the petitioner against his wife are as under:

i) Within a month from the date of marriage, the respondent started exhibiting odd behavior of getting into fits of rage, yelling and quarrelling with the petitioner for the silliest of the reasons and sitting with grumpy face and staying aloof.

ii) The respondent started questioning the fidelity of the petitioner and belittling him of not being a proper match.

iii) She started demanding extravagant life asking him to take out for shopping and dinner almost every day and she was very stubborn and quarrelsome.

iv) The respondent who claims to be traditional and orthodox woman started wearing revealing clothes and would be inappropriately dressed causing severe embarrassment to the petitioner and his family members.

v) She was addicted to smoking and liquor totally inconsistent with the tradition, custom and dignity of the Brahmanical culture of petitioner''s family.

vi) She made it clear to the petitioner that she is not going to bear children and does not want to be tied down by children and family responsibility and that she aspires for a carefree and luxurious life.

vii) She looked down the petitioner and his parents with utter contempt and was insulting the petitioner stating that he is less qualified than her as she is a Graduate of Engineering in Computer Science and employed with multinational company whereas the petitioner is only a Diploma holder, employed with Indian Company, as such he does not befit her status and sophistication.

viii) She demanded the petitioner to set up a separate house and when he tried to reason with her she started giving pinpricks to the petitioner and his mother abusing them in foul and filthy language. She started exhibiting rude and disrespectful behaviour walking out of the house at her whims and fancies without informing about her whereabouts. She used to pick up silly fights and quarrel and would every now and then run into the bath room and lock herself threatening to commit suicide.

ix) She has excessive and abnormal sexual desires; she would fight and abuse the petitioner and his parents creating a big scene and havoc at home and the very next moment she would demand for sexual intercourse with the petitioner when his mental peace and emotions were totally shattered. She would even physically assault the petitioner compelling him for sex and would thereafter belittle him stating that he is not a match for her and accuse him of under-performance and would cause severe disturbance to his mental peace. After the performance of sexual act, the respondent would say that she may have to look outside marriage for sexual satisfaction claiming that she preferred men from Mangalore praising them to be robust and good looking and that she would divorce the petitioner and marry a Mangalorean. This attitude of the respondent caused severe disturbance and pain to the petitioner.

x) The respondent is totally averse to have children. She had conceived just about a year after the marriage and forcefully got the same aborted much against the wishes of the petitioner.

xi) She would get drunk at functions and get- together or whenever she went out with the petitioner. She has been abusing the petitioner that her marriage with him has irretrievably broken down and was demanding divorce from the petitioner. On one occasion she picked up quarrel over the said issue with the petitioner in the car abusing the petitioner and his mother demanding divorce and threatening to finish off his mother. The petitioner had then recorded the abuses and threats in audio tape produced along with the petition.

xii) In order to cause hurt and harassment to the petitioner, the respondent started sending photographs of having good time in liquor parties with other men through emails and informing him quite often in the emails that she would be out of town for 2-3 days. The respondent got herself picked up from the marital home by some stranger/men in 4 wheeler in full view of the petitioner and his neighbours at odd hours and used to go out on parties with them causing severe pain and harassment to the petitioner.

The respondent-wife has chosen to file the written objections. All the allegations of cruelty imputed to her have been emphatically denied. According to her, the allegations made against her are false and fabricated and baseless, that too, made with a specific intention to hurt her feelings. She was stated to be residing with the petitioner along with his mother in the same house under the same roof from the date of marriage. According to her, the marriage was an arranged one and that the families of both the parties had agreed for the marriage. Petitioner and his family members had colluded and insulted her by using foul languages. According to her, petitioner and his mother used to quarrel with her without any reason. When the respondent impressed upon the need of having a car, the petitioner started abusing her. According to her, petitioner''s father used to contact her over telephone and was requesting her not to take the allegations made by his son and wife seriously and not to take them to her heart. After the death of her father-in-law, they wanted to purchase a car by availing loan from State Bank of India and petitioner insisted upon her to be a surety to be Bank in order to avail loan. Accordingly she stood as surety and a car was purchased. On 05.08.2006 petitioner and his mother assaulted her and was responsible for the domestic violence. She was injured and taken to the nearby clinic by the petitioner on 12.12.2006. She was physically assaulted again with brutal injuries and she was thrown out of the house. She was treated in Victoria Hospital. On the same day she went to Mahila Police Station and made a representation.

On 06.10.2007 she was once again assaulted by the petitioner and his mother and she took treatment in Victoria Hospital on 06.10.2007 is her averment. She tolerated all the physical and mental torture with a fond hope that he would mend himself. Petitioner and his mother had threatened her with dire consequences by filing a complaint to the police With an intention to create false evidence petitioner filed a false complaint on 25.10.2007 to Basavanagudi Police Station. One more complaint was summoned by the police. She denied all the allegations and her statement was recorded.

It is her case that she could have earned more than Rs. 12 lakhs per annum if she had not been tortured by the petitioner and his mother. His mother is stated to have told her that she was not at all her daughter-in-law and that she would arrange for the re-marriage of his son with a girl at Mumbai. The allegation that she was averse to have children is absolutely false and untrue. It is her averment that she drinks only milk or juice and not even coffee or tea and therefore, the allegation that she is addicted to drinks is absolutely false. According to her, petitioner himself has treated her with great cruelty both physically and mentally and petition is stated to have been filed with malafide intention. Hence she has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

After hearing the arguments and perusing the pleadings and evidence, the learned Judge has allowed the petition and thereby the marriage has been dissolved. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

It is further contended that the Trial Court has not properly analysed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and that the Trial Court has adopted a wrong approach to the real state of affairs. It is further contended that the initial burden cast upon the petitioner to prove the allegation of cruelty has not been effectively discharged and therefore the onus had not shifted on her to explain the allegations. It is contended that Exs. P26 to 39 can be easily created on a computer, moreso, when such e-mail having not been sent from the email I.D. of the person named as sender. They are stated to be concocted documents more especially, in the absence of any attachments to them. Exs. P3 to P25 are apparently fabricated documents and they could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court. The Trial Court is stated to have based its finding on surmises and conjectures and not on the basis of critical analysis of the evidence placed on record. The photographs relied upon by the petitioner have been misunderstood by the Trial Court.

It is contended that the learned Judge has improperly come to the conclusion that her conduct is promiscuous. It is further contended that such observations could not have been made by the Trial Court. The observations of the Trial Court that P.W. 2 the mother of the petitioner has withstood the cross-examination and thereby corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1. It is stated to be absolutely incorrect and does not withstand the judicial scrutiny. The explanation given by her has not been properly analysed in the backdrop of the facts of the case, is one more contention. The Trial Court is stated to have adopted a wrong approach to the real state of affairs. The order of granting divorce is stated to be opposed to law, facts and probabilities and hence it is requested to allow the appeal and thereby dismiss the petition filed for divorce. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued at length by relying upon the grounds urged in the appeal memo.

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has argued by supporting the impugned order. According to him, the order of the Trial Court is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record. Hence he has prayed to dismiss the appeal.

After having heard the arguments and having perused the records, following points arise for our consideration:

Whether the learned Judge is justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent-wife treated him with cruelty?

Whether any interference is called for by this Court and if so, to what extent?

The word ''cruelty'' is not defined in Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. In V. Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, , mental cruelty has been explained by the Apex Court. The said decision has been followed subsequently in many decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court inclusive of the decision in Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, . As held in these decisions it is very difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. Cruelty must be of such a type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship of the parties has deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. The conduct of the other spouse must touch a certain pitch of severity to cause pain in the mind of the other. It is true that the burden is always on the petitioner seeking divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) or (ib) to effectively discharge the burden as contemplated u/s 101 of Evidence Act. If the initial burden is not effectively discharged the petition is liable to be dismissed not withstanding the inconsistencies in the case of the opposite side. It would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so abnormal and below accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonably be expected to put with it. Now it is settled in catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court that cruelty could be physical or mental.

In the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, let us analyse the evidence. Various types of harassment meted out to him and his mother have been succinctly put forth by the Trial Court in its judgment and the same have been reproduced in the initial portion of this judgment.

It is true that the learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that material assertions found in the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 have not been either denied while cross examining them nor specifically denied in the pleadings. Hence it is contended that such assertions are deemed to have been accepted. On going through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 and R.W.-1, it is evident that respondent has specifically denied the material averments and denied the material suggestions put to her. Apart from this suggestions have been put to P.W. s 1 & 2 denying allegations made on oath. Hence we are not agreeable to accept that contention.

A decree for divorce can be granted only on being satisfied that the grounds for granting the relief of divorce exist. The first important aspect of cruelty alleged in the petition as well as in the examination-in-chief is about the respondent being in company of spending good time in liquor parties with men. Relevant pleading is found in paragraph 22 of the petition filed u/s 13(1)(ia) and the relevant portion is reproduced below:--

The respondent, to cause hurt and harassment to the petition is now sending photographs of having good time in liquor parties with other men through emails and informing him quite often on the emails that she would be out of town for 2 days, 3 days etc. the respondent gets herself picked up from the martial home by some strangers/men in four wheelers in full view of the petitioner and neighbours or odd hours and goes out to party with them causing severe pain and harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner herewith produce emails and photographs mailed to him by the respondent to Annexures C & D".

PW.-1 has deposed to that effect in the examination-in-chief as found in paragraph 14 and same is reproduced:--

Several other strange men would also come to the house, pick and drop her at all odd hours. Not being satisfied with this she use to send the photographs by email. The photographs are tell tale.

14 emails have marked as Ex. P.26 to 39. These emails have originated from the email id bharathirao@logicacmg.com. Ex. P26 is dated 9.1.2007 at 3.59 pm. These exhibits P26 to 39 are addressed to the petitioner. R.W.-1 has admitted that she has two emails ids- one in her personal name and another of her official mail id. All these emails are between the period 9.1.2007 to 1.7.2007 i.e., prior to the filing of petition for divorce, most of these emails disclose that on many occasions she was going out of Bangalore and coming after few days. If she had not sent the emails she could have demonstrated that Exs. P26 to 39 have not emanated through her email-ids. Looking to the contents of the same, it cannot be said that they were manipulated by the petitioner using her email id. As rightly pointed out by the learned judge, emails come under the definition ''electronic record'' u/s 2(t) of the Information Technology Act 2000 and are admissible in evidence. Of course the respondent has denied the authenticity of these emails and photographs. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that they have to be proved in accordance with law as admissibility of document does not dispense with the proof of such a document. In this regard it is useful to know that these documents have been relied upon by the petitioner at the earliest point of time i.e., at the time of filing the petition. It is his case that he is only a recipient of these emails and photographs and has asserted on oath. On the other hand, R.W.-1 has deposed that P.W.-1 had hacked her computer and thereby fabricated these emails and photographs as he had known her email id. In the light of such a plea of fabrication of document, it was incumbent upon her to substantiate the same that P.W.-1 created these Exs. P3 to 25 i.e., photos and Exs. P26 to 39 emails. Therefore putting few suggestions to P.W.-1 alleging fabrication will be of no assistance to R.W.-1.

In fact Exs. P3 to 25 i.e., photographs were confronted to her while she was being cross examined. After looking to the photographs, R.W.-1 has admitted that she is seen in all the photographs. But she has hastened to add that these photographs were taken by the petitioner. If this explanation is accepted, one thing is clear that R.W.-1 was very much aware of the time and place where these photographs were taken. To another question that she has been looking at the cameraman, R.W.-1 has volunteered to add that she was looking at her husband. By this she meant that P.W.-1 had taken all these photographs but without her consent and knowledge. She has further volunteered that she had requested P.W.-1 to show the photographs to her but he did not show them to her. From the pointed questions put to her and the answers and explanations given by her, it is evident that she was very much aware about the place and time of such photographs being taken and the origin of these photographs. She has made an attempt to deny the authenticity of these photographs as she is seen with strangers in questionable dress. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, there was no occasion to deny the authenticity of these photographs if her husband had really taken these photographs.

Ex. P-3 is a colour photograph depicting her with an unknown man in a boat and Ex. P-4 is a photograph depicting with an unknown man and lady in a merry mood with liquor bottles around near a camp fire. Ex. P-5 is a photograph of R.W.-1 near a camp fire taken on 04.08.2007 at 8.23 pm. Ex. P-6 is another photograph of her with a man holding liquor bottle near camp fire. Ex. P-7 is a photograph taken at 8.15 pm on 4.7.2007 while drinking with unknown persons. Ex. P-8 is a photograph of R.W.-1 with a night talking to a young man near the gate. Exs. P9 to 10 are the photographs of R.W.-1 in the same nighty in a merry mood in a room as indicated in Ex. P8. Ex. P11 is one more photo in identical pose as found in Ex P8. Ex. P12 is her photo taken in a room. Ex. P13 is her another photo with a 3/4 pant and T-shirt on a morning. Ex. P14 is her photo with a lying position in a beach. Exs. P15 to 20 are six photographs depicting her in different dress in a beach. Ex. P21 is a photograph with a lady and two young men in a forest. Ex. P22 is a photo taken on 4.7.2007 at 11.43 am with unknown boy and a lady. Ex. P23 is a photo of R.W.-1 on a horse and Ex. P24 is a photo with a girl friend taken on 4.7.2007 on 3.13 pm. Ex. P25. is a photograph taken on 6.43 pm on 4.8.2007.

It is to be seen that by the time the photographs were taken in the month of July and August 2007, her relationship with P.W.-1 had been strained too much. Hence her stand that P.W.-1 had taken her photos is absolutely unbelievable. On a pointed question about the young men seen with her in those photographs, she has deposed that they were the relatives of P.W.-1 and that she does not know their names. It is unbelievable as to how she could not remember the names of the relatives of P.W.-1. When the evidence is tested on the anvil of intrinsic probabilities, it can be said that no prudent husband will allow his wife to be in a such a merry with grown up men. Looking to the way in which she has made an attempt to wriggle out of the situation, it can be said that she was aware of those photos being taken without any deceit. Hence no separate proof is required to establish the authenticity of the same. Apart from this P.W.-1 is not to be found in all these photographs. If she was really aggrieved by the authenticity of Exs. P3 to P25, nothing came in her way of getting the CD for the lab test. Under these circumstances we are inclined to accept the plea of R.W.-1 that these photographs had been emailed to him by R.W.-1 so as to provoke him.

It is the case of R.W.-1 that the mother of the petitioner wanted to arrange a second marriage to the petitioner in consultation with Shanti Aunty of Mumbai. She has even gone to the extent of stating that P.W.-1 had received Rs. 50,000/- from the girl''s side. She has further deposed that her mother-in-law herself told her about the same. To disprove her allegation P.W.-1 has produced Ex. P42 the photo copy of the cheque drawn on SBI, Bangalore City branch as 11-9-2007 favouring the petitioner the M/s. ASM Technologies where petitioner was working. A certificate is issued to that effect by the collecting banker ICICI on 13.3.2012 and this is evidenced in Ex. P41. This would indicate that the respondent was making all ill founded allegations.

Coming back to the photographs marked as Exs. P3 to P23, pointed questions were put to R.W.-1 in her cross examination. This is found in page 18 of her oral evidence. To a question as to what is the impact of the photographs, she has answered that she was duped. Being not satisfied with the answer, learned counsel for the petitioner chose to put a specific suggestion that in the background of she being in a company of unknown persons at unknown places in a merry mood that too having come from a family of tradition and good background, she has answered that P.W.-1 himself had asked her to wear such dress and be with them as they were his relatives. Such an explanation is only a ruse and does not stand the test of either reasoning or logic.

The next important allegation of cruelty attributed to her is that she was talking to one Anil Gowda often that too at odd hours and had intimacy with him. The mobile number of R.W.-1 was 9845823549. Ex. P40 is the call list issued by the service provides of her mobile i.e., Airtel. It is for the period from 2.11.2007 to 26.11.2007. In paragraph 14 of his evidence P.W.-1 has made a specific allegation that respondent was going round frequently in the company of one Anil Gowda of Jayanagar and he had seen her moving with Anil Gowda as various places and on being questioned she had told him that he was interested in him and that he i.e. P.W.-1 could do what ever he liked. It is further deposed that she would constantly telephone to him through her mobile in a romantic way and thereby tease him i.e., P.W.-1. In his further examination-in-chief he has given Anil Gowda''s mobile number as 9845185491. His assertion is that she was talking to Anil during night time.

Of course P.W.-1 has deposed that he does not know who this Anil Gowda is and what is his avocation. He does not remember the dates on which he had seen her moving with Anil. He had not questioned the said Anil. Suggestion put to him that he has woven a story with a fictitious name Anil has been specifically denied. The authenticity of Ex. P40 in challenged in R.W.-1 contending that it is a fabricated document. But she has admitted that her mobile number finds a place in Ex. P40. If really the authenticity was in dispute, there was no difficulty to get a copy from her service provider. Having not done so she cannot contend that Ex. P40 is a fake document. She has admitted that she did not verify at any time as to who was the owner of mobile No. 9845185491. She has feigned ignorance about the suggestion that Anil Gowda is the owner of mobile bearing SIM No. 9845185491.

Calls had been made from her mobile bearing No. 9845823549 to mobile bearing No. 9845185491 on 15 occasions in between 02.11.2007 to 26.11.2007. On 03.11.2007 there was call from 9845823549 to 9845185491 at 9.34 p.m. for 58 minutes and 21 seconds i.e., during night. Similarly there was call at 10.52 p.m. on the same day i.e., 03.11.2007 for 10 minutes 31 seconds. On 15.11.2007 there were two calls to mobile No. 9845185491 at 10.12 p.m. and 11.24 p.m. respectively for a duration of 12 seconds and 19 minutes and 36 seconds respectively. On 18.11.2007 there was call at 9.51 p.m. for 37 minutes 40 seconds and on 19.11.2007 for 4 minutes 13 seconds at 9.27 p.m.

What is deposed about Anil Gowda and contacting him over his mobile, she has deposed in her examination-in-chief vide paragraph-22 stating that she does not know Anil and had not telephoned to him at any point of time. Thus she has specifically denied the allegation. She has tried to give an explanation that P.W. 1 had made calls from her mobile 9845823549. To a specific question was put to R.W.-1 asking whether P.W. 1 had telephoned to any other person from her mobile, the answer given by her is that Ex. P40 is a fabricated document. Instead of answering the pointed question, she has given an evasive answer. It is to be seen that during November 2007 they were not living together. She used to reside in the first floor and P.W. 1 and her mother were residing in the ground floor and they were cooking separately. As already discussed, relationship had been strained and petition for divorce had already been filed in August 2007. Therefore, it was incumbent upon her to give out the details of the person to whom she had called at odd hours and the reason therefor. In the light of her evasive answers, it can be said that she is trying to hide a material fact and hence the allegation made against her cannot be considered as ill-founded. This conduct is highly questionable and this is nothing but a cruelty to her husband.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized 17.02.2005 at Bangalore as per Hindu customs. Prior to marriage they had loved each other and their parents arranged the marriage. Initially both of them were working in the same office. After sometime, the petitioner joined as Business Development Manager, ASM Technologies Ltd, Bangalore. After his marriage, one bedroom with attached bathroom was put up on the ground floor. Both the ground and first floor have separate entries. Marital life went on well for few months. After sometime, he purchased a car. It is her case that she insisted him to pay monthly instalments of loan to the Bank. But he has denied such a suggestion. According to her, trouble started between them because of this. The differences were such that she started living in the first floor and he started living in the ground floor. It is his case that she was rude to his parents and harassed his mother who is a traditional lady. She went to the extent of lodging a complaint to Basavanagudi Women Police Station, against her husband and mother-in-law and all of them had been summoned to the police station. Ex. R1 is the copy of the police complaint. This is dated 12.12.2006. Statement of P.W. 1 recorded by the police would disclose that there were some misunderstanding between his mother and RW1 and in this regard he had scolded his wife and that he would not give scope for such incidents in future.

She has chosen to lodge one more complaint to ''Basavanagudi Women Police Station on 06.10.2007 against P.W. 1 and his mother. In October 2005 itself, his father had died. She had alleged against P.W. 1 that he had assaulted her and had threatened to give divorce. She had sought protection. Mother of P.W. 1 also had lodged a complaint to Mahila Sahaaya Vani, Bangalore, about the attitude of her daughter-in-law in October 2007 listing various acts of indecency and harassment. In this regard, RW1 had been called to the Sahaayavani Centre. Of course, all those complaints/petitions were after the petition for divorce was filed. One thing is certain that there were serious differences between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law. We cannot forget that P.W. 2 the mother of P.W. 1 had to look after her husband who had some ailments. He died in October 2005. She was under great stress. R.W. 2 started quarreling with her for trivial reasons. She is the best witness to speak about what transpired in the matrimonial home. She cannot be considered as an interested witness. If she had not been examined, it would have been argued that P.W. 1 has not corroborated his material allegations.

P.W. 2 Smt. Lakshmi G. Rao, has deposed about the attitude of RW1 and the serious inconveniences caused to her and her son, as a results of her behaviour. In her examination-in-chief, P.W. 2 has deposed that RW1 used to abuse her and her son in front of relatives and was suspecting his fidelity without any basis. She used to drink liquor and bring non-vegetarian food to the house and throw egg shells and bones on tulasi plant and call her as old fashioned lady. She has also deposed that she used to go out of the house without informing her or her son and return late in the night with unknown persons. She would bring many unknown persons at odd hours to the house and put on T.V. and raise the sound of T.V. so that it would disturb her and neighbours. It is her case that being unable to withstand the torture, she had go to Bombay and stay with her daughter.

In her cross-examination, to a specific suggestion that her son and daughter-in-law could lead happy life, she he has answered in the negative emphatically. She has further deposed in the cross-examination that RW1 used to come late in the night and would be away from the house for 3-4 days many a times. Certain suggestions put to her denying all the allegations have been emphatically denied. In fact she has withstood the rigor of cross-examination. It can be said that nothing useful has been culled out from the deposition to discredit her evidence or to probabilize the defence of RW1. Admittedly, she comes from a traditional Brahmin family. RW1 herself has admitted that P.W. 2 is a traditional lady and P.W. 1 is her only son. Normally no mother-in-law would precipitate the family matter so as to create a gulf between the son and daughter-in-law. Her assertion that RW1 used to create a ruckus in the house or near the house whenever she was being questioned about her indifferent attitude. She has asserted that she was insisting her son to part company with her i.e., P.W. 2 and make a separate house. It is her case that she i.e., RW1 is addicted to luxurious and carefree life. These material assertions have virtually remained unchallenged. On analyzing the evidence of P.W. 2 on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities, we are of the opinion that her evidence is neither laced with untruth nor distortion.

RW1 has alleged that P.W. 1 and his mother had demanded dowry and taken dowry. RW1 has specifically admitted that in none of the complaints given to police there is any allegation of demand for or receipt of dowry. Making such serious allegations in her objections and evidence regarding dowry that too without an iota of evidence amounts to mental cruelty. At one breath she says that she had lodged complaint to police and at another breath she says that she had requested the police not to register case. This would indicate that complaints were made to harass P.W. 1 and his mother.

From the course of her conduct, the respondent has made the life of the petitioner who is the only son to his widowed mother miserable. As a dutiful wife, RW1 is not ready to take the family responsibility. On the other hand, she is living in the first floor separately and is addicted to carefree life. She has a bad temper and is highly egoistic. As a result of her acts she has damaged the reputation of the family of P.W. 1. The marriage has virtually broken down irretrievably and there are no chances of reunion or reapproachment.

Though she had conceived, she got it aborted. Reasons are not made known for such abortion. And this supports the allegation that she is not interested in bearing child and burden of looking after the child. Her incompatibility in marital life is such that it is almost impossible for P.W. 1 to live with her.

The learned Judge has analysed the documentary evidence in detail adverting to the major causes which have caused cruelty to PWs. 1 and 2. The evidence is tested on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities. The Trial Court has adopted a right approach to the real state of affairs keeping in mind the leading principles enunciated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in regard to what amounts to mental cruelty. The judgment is not based either on conjectures or surmises. Even on re-assessment of the evidence by us, we do not find any reason to find fault with the trial Court''s approach. It is a well reasoned judgment which is neither opposed to law, nor facts nor probabilities. Hence we answer point No. 1 in the affirmative.

Point No. 2

In view of our affirmative finding on point No. 1, the appeal will have to be dismissed by upholding the impugned order of granting divorce.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, decree of divorce granted in M.C. No. 1953/2007 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on 19.04.2012 is upheld. In view of the relationship of the parties, we pass no order as to costs.