JUDGMENT
B. Rai, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated November 2, 1995 of the learned Additional Distt. Judge, Kaithal, whereby petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by Bala Devi against her husband Ram Kumar was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
2. It was pleaded by Bala Devi that she was married with Ram Kumar according to Hindu rites on June, 13, 1987 at Village Pundri. Since 1993, they lived together and cohabited together at village Chor Karsa for about four months – but no issue was bom from their wedlock. She further pleaded that her husband kept her for a period of four months in total after marriage till she was turned out from the matrimonial home. Her grievance is that Ram Kumar is ill-mannered person. He publicly abused her and used to state that she was very ugly, there is no place in the house for her; and that he is a dowry greedy man. After only ten days of the marriage, he used to beat her for not bringing sufficient dowry at the instance of the members of his family. She brought Rs. 5,000/- from her father to satisfy the respondent but in vain. He became more and more cruel towards her. After giving severe beatings, she was sent to bring more dowry from the house of her father. Her father gave a sum of Rs. 2,000/- more to satisfy the respondent. She further alleged that the respondent kept her even without food and water and tried to strangulate her. Her case further is that in the month of May, 1993 respondent turned her out from the matrimonial home in three clothes after giving severe beatings and since then she has been living in the house of her father at Village Pundri. Her father along with other respectables took panchayat to the house of the respondent who advised him not to give beatings and to keep her in the matrimonial home peacefully but the respondent flatly refused to keep and maintain her. She became mentally upset and her life became a hell. According to Bala Devi, the attitude of the respondent towards her is very cruel and there is danger to her life. It was also pleaded by her that the petition was not being presented in collusion with the respondent and had been filed without unnecessary and improper delay; and that no previous proceedings with regard to marriage were pending. On the premise of these allegations, she filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.
3. The petition was contested by Ram Kumar husband of the appellant. On notice, Ram Kumar replied to the petition admitting his marriage with Bala Devi. He also admitted that out of the wedlock no child was born. He, however, contested the petition denying other allegations. He alleged that the petitioner-appellant left his house under the pressure of her uncle Bhagtu alias Tilku, his Jija. According to him, his behavior towards her has been very cordial and homely, and the real facts are that Smt. Kamala, his sister was married with Bhagtu alias Tilku who is also uncle of Bala Devi. It was so because the parties were Ror by caste and among Rors custom is prevalent of Aata-Satta, i.e., taking a female from other family and to give a female in marriage to that other family. It was further pleaded by Ram Kumar that his sister Kamla had died at the time of delivery. Under the pressure of Bhagtu alias Tilku, appellant came to the house of her father. When he went to take her, Bhagtu refused to send her saying that firstly he should be got married with a female member in his (Ram Kumar’s) family. He, therefore, had to come back. He convened a Panchayat at least six times at village Pundri but Bhagtu alias Tilku was adamant and got the present petition filed. He pleaded that he has been very regardful towards Bala Devi. He has been endeavouring and requesting her to come to his house. It was, however, admitted that Bala Devi was living in the house of her father at Village Pundri and that no previous proceedings with regard to the marriage were pending.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed by the trial Court:
1) Whether the respondent exercised cruelty towards the petitioner as alleged? OPP
2) Relief.
5. The learned trial Court considered the evidence led by the parties. The trial Court felt satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that conduct of respondent was not of such type that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent or that it had become impossible for them to live together. The atmosphere in the house was also not so su charged that it was not conducive for mental and physical health of the petitioner to live with the respondent. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided against the petitioner and the petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Bala Devi was dismissed.
6. Feeling aggrieved, Bala Devi has preferred the present Appeal. Along withthe Appeal, an application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed. Notice of the Appeal and that of application (C.M. No. 58-M of 1995) Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was given, but the respondent refused to accept notice. Hence, he was proceeded against ex parte, vide order, dated October 3, 1996 by this Court.
7. The application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed. The appellant was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month from November 24, 1995, the date of the petition, and Rs. 4.00 as litigation expenses. It was further ordered that arrears be paid within two months. The husband did not make the payment of maintenance allowance and litigation expenses to Bala Devi within the period stipulated in the order, dated October 3, 1996. Bala Devi therefore, filed an Execution Application under Order XXI, Rule 11(2) read with Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also filed a separate application Under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for striking off the defence of the respondent. Despite notice, the respondent neither put in appearance nor did he pay anything to the appellant-wife. Considering the conduct of the husband, his defence was struck off. The Execution Application was, however, dismissed as not pressed.
8. Bala Devi while appearing as PW1 reiterated all the allegations contained in the Divorce Petition and her father Ram Dhari (PW2) corroborated her statement.
9. On the other hand, Ram Kumar in his defence denied all the allegations. The same were also denied by him while he examined himself as RW1. In support of his case, he also examined Baldev son of Lal Singh as RW2.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. Bala Devi claimed divorce on the ground of cruelty. Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the term “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, the Court has to take into consideration the facts and surrounding circumstances of each case to find out whether a spouse has treated the other with cruelty as contemplated under the Act and for that purpose, the Court has to take into account the social status, background of spouse, customs and’ traditions, community and castes of the parties and the environments in which they are brought up. The Court has to satisfy itself that the spouse complaining is placed in such a situation that on account of the cruelty meted out it has become difficult for them to live together as husband and wife. It was stated by Bala Devi (PW1) that after the marriage, they remained together as husband and wife for a few months and then her husband started beating and harassing her on account of bringing inadequate dowry. She was given beatings and turned out from the matrimonial home in three wearing apparels. She narrated the incident to her parents. When her father took the Panchayat to the house of the respondent to persuade him not to beat her and live peacefully, he flatly refused to keep her. Her specific allegation is that behaviour of her husband and the members of the family remained cruel towards her. She was cross-examined at length suggesting that she was not treated with cruelty, but all the suggestions were denied by her. Ram Dhari (PW2) father of Bala Devi also stated that 2-1/2/3 years after the marriage of Bala Devi with Ram Kumar Muklawa was performed and she was sent to the house of Ram Kumar. After one month of the muklawa, she came to him and told about the demands raised by Ram Kumar. He further stated that after two months, she again came to his house in three clothes and told that the respondent and other members of the family had given beatings and harassed her. He took the Panchayat to advise Ram Kumar to keep her in his matrimonial home in a peaceful manner, but he flatly refused to do so. During the course, of cross-examination, suggestions were put to him that Bala Devi was not harassed and mal-treated and that no beatings were given to her by Ram Kumar and other members of the family, but these suggestions were denied by him also. No doubt, Ram Kumar while appearing as RW1, stated that he neither beat the appellant nor did he ever abuse her. He also denied having raised demands for more dowry. Baldev (RW2) stated that he knows Ram Kumar and Bala Devi as they belong to his village. According to him, they lived together as husband and wife nicely. It was stated by him that whenever dispute arose between Bala Devi and Ram Kumar, he used to attend Panchayats at Village Pundri. That goes to show that Bala Devi and Ram Kumar were not living peacefully and there have been quarrels and disputes between them. From this, an inference also flows that it is on account of the disputes between husband and wife that Bala Devi started living with her parents. Despite the orders of the Court, he has not paid the maintenance allowance and litigation expenses to her. That shows the contumacy of the husband in not making any payment to his wife. Therefore, subsequent conduct of Ram Kumar also goes to show that he has no respect for his wife. He is not even ready to pay anything to her for her maintenance. His defence having been struck off, allegations levelled against him regarding the cruelty meted out to her have to be taken as correct and established.
11. From the reasons recorded above, appeal of Bala Devi is allowed. The Judgment and decree, dated November 2, 1995 of the learned trial Court are set aside and the petition Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is allowed and her marriage with Ram Kumar is dissolved by a decree of divorce, with costs.