S. Chandrashekhar, J.

1. Ful Kumari Devi, who is the appellant before us, instituted Original Suit No. 87 of 2015 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of her marriage solemnized with Kedar Singh in the year 1995.

2. By the judgment dated 9th February 2018, Original Suit No. 87 of 2015 which was instituted under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda.

3. The appellant has made allegations of cruelty by her husband who abused and assaulted her and had demanded 2½ bighas of land as dowry. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement denying the aforesaid allegations levelled against him by his wife. He has set up a case that his wife under influence of some villagers started creating problems in the matrimony.

4. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda vide order dated 27th January 2016 has framed the issue; whether the plaintiff Ful Kumari Devi is entitled for divorce from her husband/defendant namely Kedar Singh on the ground of cruelty or not

5. Both parties have examined witnesses in support of their respective case. The appellant has examined three witnesses whereas her husband has also examined three witnesses to resist her claim for divorce.

6. As PW 1, the appellant has deposed in the Court that her husband has two wives and she is his third wife. Since she is the only child of her parents her husband stayed with her mother as 'Ghar Jamai'. However, later on, he picked up drinking habits and developed illicit relationship with another woman. She has stated in the Court that her husband was pressurizing her for 2½ bighas land as dowry. She has further stated that due to fear of her husband, she left home and has been supporting herself by working as maid-servant for the last two years.

7. The other two witnesses examined by the appellant have also supported her on the point of demand of 2½ bighas land by her husband and other misconducts by him.

8. However, in her cross-examination, the appellant admitted that she has been living with her mother, husband and three children at village-Danre and her husband was engaged in the agriculture works in the land belonging to her father. She could not give name of the other wives of her husband and has said that she only heard about the other wives of her husband. She has further admitted that her mother never scolded or rebuked her husband. PW 2 and PW 3 have also admitted that they had no information about previous marriage of Kedar Singh. They have further admitted that mother of the appellant is the owner of the land and, that, the appellant is not under the control of her mother.

9. On the other hand, the respondent produced mother of the appellant and her co-villager who have stated in the Court that the appellant has weak intellect who under the influence of some other person started creating problems in her own matrimonial life. The appellant gave a specific instance the night of 5th June 2015 when her husband came in a drunken state with 5-6 criminals and threatened to kill her if she did not execute the transfer deed in his favour. She has further alleged that her husband brutally assaulted her when she denied to transfer the land in his favour and he drove her out from the house. However, her own witnesses did not support her completely and, in fact, the evidence of the mother of the appellant and her co-villager has completely demolished her case that she was harassed and tortured by her husband in connection to demand of 2½ bighas land as dowry.

10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has held as under:

"9. From the evidence, it is clear that the entire land is being cultivated by petitioner's husband. It is also evident from the evidence that petitioner's mother does not rebuke or abuse to opposite party and petitioner's husband resides in the house of petitioner's mother just like a son. O.P.W. 1 Most Gona Devi, who is the mother of petitioner has stated in para-1 of her affidavit that she is the mother of petitioner. In para-4 she has stated that Fulkumari (petitioner) has three children from Kedar Singh out of which there are two sons and one daughter. In para-5 she has stated that the opposite party Kedar Singh lives at her residence vill. Danre along with wife and children and Kedar Singh lives at her residence since 20 years. She has further stated that the opposite party does not drink wine nor he has any bad conduct. She has further stated that Kedar Singh never used to talk to sell the land. She has further stated that till her life she is the owner of her property. Her daughter is not the owner of her property. In para-7 she has stated that due to the disturbance of mental condition of her daughter petitioner under the influence of other goes hither and thither. In para-8 she has stated that whenever she (petitioner) lives outside from her residence in the night then her children and her husband objects then Ful Kumari does not feel well. She has further stated that from her land the maintenance can not be done for a month. She has further stated that Kedar Singh maintained her family. In para-10 she has stated that Kedar Singh never beats her wife nor there is any illicit relationship of opposite party with another lady. In para-11 she has stated that Kedar Singh keeps her wife and children with full dignity and honour. In para-12 she has stated that Ful Kumari under the influence of other a false case, she has instituted in Poraiyahat P.S. but after investigation the same has been proved false. She has further stated that due to weak mental condition of Ful Kumari the person of inimical terms always remains to impress otherwise to the petitioner. In para-15 she has stated that her inimical person wants to destroy her residence and making influence upon Ful Kumari. In para-16 the mother of the petitioner has clearly stated that if the divorce is accepted then her life and children would be ruined.

10. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances the decree of divorce can not be passed in favour of petitioner on the basis of whims and fancies played by petitioner. So this is not a fit case for divorce and the contention of the petitioner is out and out wrong and false at the same time it can be said that somehow the case has been manufactured by the petitioner. Therefore, the decree of divorce can not be granted in favour of petitioner, hence the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner for decree of divorce is hereby dismissed."

11. In the first place, we would indicate that there is no clarity in the plaint as regards the ground(s) set up by the appellant seeking divorce by dissolution of her marriage with Kedar Singh. From the evidence of the appellant in the Court, we gather that she has made allegations of cruelty against her husband but the other statements made by her in the cross-examination create serious doubt over the case set up by her. On the contrary, the evidence of her husband tendered in the Court has been fully supported by her mother and a co-villager. These witnesses have put blame on the appellant and did not approve the allegation of harassment and torture levelled by the appellant against her husband. From the wedlock of the parties three children, who are now grown up, have been born but they have not come forward in her support.

12. Under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 a marriage solemnized between the parties can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the grounds specified therein. Under clause (i-a) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 a decree of divorce may be granted where the applicant has established that after solemnization of the marriage the other party has treated the petitioner with cruelty. The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, however, there is a series of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which provide sufficient guidelines to the Courts to deal with the allegations of cruelty as envisaged under clause (i-a) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

13. The expression 'cruelty' under section 13(1)(i-a) would include mental cruelty also, however, the allegation by the appellant regarding illicit relationship of her husband with another woman appears to be so flimsy that she has not even disclosed the name of the said woman. As regards allegations of physical cruelty there is no evidence of physical violence inflicted upon her by her husband inasmuch as no witness has come forward to support her on this issue nor has she produced any documentary evidence to support her allegation of physical violence by her husband.

14. In fact, there is nothing much in the records to deal with and we would close the discussion by referring to "N.G. Dastane (Dr) v. S. Dastane" (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"30..... The inquiry therefore 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. 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."

15. Having thus examined the materials on record, we are satisfied that the judgment in Original Suit No. 87 of 2015 is based on proper appreciation of evidence by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda and, accordingly, F.A. No. 134 of 2018 is dismissed.