Mian Jalal-ud-Din, Actg. C.J.

1. This civil misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jammu allowing the petition of the husband made u/s 10/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and passing a decree for judicial separation in favour of the petitioner against the respondent.

2. Shri Balbir Singh, filed an application against Smt. Kamla Devi, with the allegations that the latter was married to the former in the year 1964. Her treatment towards him was cruel inasmuch as she always adopted disrespectful attitude and behaviour towards the petitioner. She used foul and abusing language towards him. The treatment as accorded towards the husband caused reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful and injurious for him to live with her. The wife denied the charges made against her. The following sole issue was raised in the case.

1. Whether the respondent has been treating the petitioner with such a cruelty that her stay with him is either dangerous to his life or injurious to his health OPP.

3. About half a dozen of witnesses were examined by the petitioner. The learned trial Judge after appraisal of their evidence found Issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner-husband. He held that the wife used foul and abusive language towards her husband in presence of his parents and that her treatment towards him was not good. The behaviour of the wife undoubtedly caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be injurious for him 1o live with her. He, therefore, passed a decree, for judicial separation.

4. Appearing for the appellant, Shri Parihar, has argued that there was no sufficient evidence on the record to establish that the treatment of the wife towards her husband was so cruel as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be detrimental for his health to Jive with her. As a matter of fact the allegation of cruelty made in the petition was vague. No time, date, and place, has been mentioned in the petition as to when and where the wife accorded cruel treatment to the husband. The court below has relied upon the quantity of witnesses rather than on their quality. He has further submitted that even if at some occasion the conduct of the wife was so-called cruel, that has been condoned by the husband after 1970. The learned Counsel has relied upon Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, in support of his submissions.

5. I have gone through the evidence. The witnesses examined by the husband are those who could naturally be in the know of the conditions of the spouse. Most of the witnesses are their neighbhours. Shankar Singh stated that after the marriage was solemnized between ! the parties the wife stayed at her husbands house only for 3/4 months and then came back to her parents house. She again came to her in-laws house just for 2/3 months and during all this 5, time her husbands treatment was nice | towards her. On the other hand, the I" attitude of the wife towards her husband was not good. She did not pursue her domestic affairs and during all this time she used to pick up quarrels with her in-laws and left the house without permission. It was at her insistence that the husband was compelled to seek separation from his parents. In spite of this there was no improvement in the attitude and conduct of the wife. This statement was corroborated by Khajoor Singh, Mangal Singh, Bal Krishen and Sansar Singh. All these witnesses stated that the wife picked up quarrels with her husband and annoyed him, It is not possible for the parties to live as husband and wife. The father of the applicant as also the applicant himself had testified to these facts. The husband as his own witness stated that the respondent used to treat him badly in presence of others. She did not even mind about his honour. Not only that she treated him badly, but also she abused his parents and relations. On one occasion when she was admitted to the hospital, he visited her there and brought some fruit and money but notwithstanding all what he had done for her, she on the contrary abused him and put him to disgrace. The witnesses examined by the respondent have not been able to inspire confidence in the mind of the trial court and also not with me as well. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince me as to why the witnesses examined by the petitioner should not be believed, and their testimony not accepted. The learned Counsel argued that the cruelty as envisaged in Section 10 of the Act has not been established. At the most it could be a case of incompatibility of temperaments which is not a ground for judicial separation.

6. In my opinion cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of a spouse, it is established and inference can legitimately and reasonably be drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse about his mental welfare, then this conduct amounts to cruelty within the meaning of the section. In Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, their Lordships have observed that the threat by the wife to her husband and insults hurled at the husband and his parents by her are of so grave an order as to imperil the husbands mental happiness and reputation. This conduct of the wife clearly amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b).

7. I do not agree with the appellant that the allegations made against the husband are vague. There is no necessity to mention the time and date of the cruelty in the petition when it is a continuing affair. The authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts and do not indeed militate against the well settled proposition that questionable conduct of a spouse if it affects mental peace and causes perpetual serious turmoil in mind, amounts to cruelty.

8. In the instant case, it is established from the evidence on the record adduced by the husband that the wife has been using foul and abusive language to the husband and to his parents. She also often picked up quarrels with him and disturbed his mental peace. This conduct of the wife, undoubtedly, amounts to cruelty. To disprove the allegations made against her, she has not even come in the witness box and has not cleared her position. In that view of the matter, there are no compelling reasons for me to depart from the view taken by the trial court both on question of fact and on question of law.

9. I also do not find any merit in the argument that there was condonation of cruelty. There is no evidence available on the record to this effect. The contention is, therefore, overruled.

10. The result is that there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.