1. The wife impugnes the decree for divorce dissolving her marriage with her husband in this appeal.

2. The facts unfolded by the husband in the position under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'The Act') briefly are :

3. The marriage between, the parties was solemnised on February 11 1980; that after the marriage parties resided at Deolali, where the husband was posted; that the wife remained with the husband at Deolali till March 1981: that in the month of February, 1982, husband received an intimation of his father's illness; that the wife initially refused to accompany the husband to Chandigarh, but on persuasion she came with the husband to Chandigarh but left for her parents' house of her own accord; that the husband alongwith his parents went to the wife's parents house to bring her back but she declined; that on expiry of leave period, the husband returned to the place of his posting; that father of the husband and his sister approached the wife and brought her back to Chandigarh and she was sent to Deolali; that in the month of June, 1981, the husband received a telegram regarding the illness of his father and he asked the wife to accompany him to Chandigarh butlshe refused and told him that she would go only after the death of his father as she was not in a position to undertake such a long journey twice; that the husband was shocked at the behaviour of the wife; that the wife accompanied the husband to Chandigarh and on reaching there, they found that the later's father had expired a day earlier; that the wife stayed at the house of husband only till Bhog ceremony and thereafter, left of her own accord to her parents place in district Ropar; that the husband came on two months leave and the wife was asked to return to Chandigarh, but she came only at the fag end of his leave and accompanied the husband to Chandigarh; that the parties resided at Deolali till December, 1981 and thereafter at Wellington; that during this period, the wife became pregnant and desired that she should deliver the first child at her parents place and in October, 1982, she came to Ropar and gave birth to a daughter on October 24, 1982 that the husband came on two months' leave and brought the wife and the minor child to Chandigarh; that they lived with the husband at Chandigarh till April, 1983 and that the wife left with the child without informing the husband, his mother or any of the relatives; that the husband approached his parents-in-law to send back the wife, but they refused; that they insulted the husband when he had gone to fetch his wife from Mahllan, where the wife resided in her parental house; that mother of the husband was admitted in the hospital in September, 1984 when she was operated upon for cancer; that a message was sent to the wife to help the husband in this hour of distress, but she did not come; that to the contrary, a relative of the wife came to the husband's house and wanted to talk to his mother on the question of bringing back the wife to Chandigarh to join the husband, but the mother of the husband was lying in intensive care unit and she could not talk to the relations; that the marriage of the husband's sister was to be celebrated on December 23, 1984; that messages were sent to the wife to attend the marriage, but she did not; that to the contrary, wife's relatives came to Chandigarh and threatened the husband and his family members that she would cause hinderance in the performance of the marriage; that the wife's relatives made efforts to break up the engagement of the husband's sister, but it survived and the marriage took place as scheduled; that the conduct of the wife caused agony to the husband, but he made attempts to rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home and filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act; that she made a statement in those proceedings on October 16, 1985 that she would accompany the husband to the matrimonial home and the petition was dismissed accordingly, but she refused to comply with the statement; that the wife made complaints to the Army Authorities alleging that the husband's mother and sister had conspired to burn her alive or throw her out of the matrimonial home; that she apprehends danger to her life and asked for grant of monthly maintenance allowance to her.

4. The wife in the written statement admitted the factum of marriage, birth of the child, stay at Deolali and Wellington and receipt of telegram regarding the serious illness of the husband's father and visit to Chandigarh in the company of the husband. She also admitted having made complaints to the Army Authorities alleging threat to her life at the hands of the mother and sister of the husband. She also admitted having written letters Exhibit P-l and Exhibit P-2 in which she acknowledged having left the husband's house without informing him or his relatives. She denied the other allegations made in the petition.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were framed :

(1) Whether the marriage between the parties is liable to be dissolved for the reasons given in the petition ? OPP (2) Relief.

6. The Matrimonial Court on appreciation of evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty and that she had deserted him continuously for a period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce by him. The husband levelled twin charges of matrimonial offence against the wife, namely, (i) she has treated the husband with cruelty (ii) has deserted him for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce. The term 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. The Matrimonial Courts have to interpret and analyse and define what would constitute cruelty in a given case, depending upon many factors such as social status, background, customs, traditions, caste and community, upbringing, public opinion prevailing in the locality etc. Cruelty should be of the type which should satisfy the conscious of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. It should be of a type from which a reasonable end prudent man would be satisfied that the atmosphere in the house of the parties is so surcharged that it is not conductive for mental and physical health of any of the spouses to live together. It need not be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health.. To sustain this charge, husband placed reliance on a complaint dated January 10, 1985 addressed by the wife to the Divisional Commander, 24 Infantry Division, Exhibit P-7. In this letter, she levelled the following charges against the husband and his relations :

(i) She over-head her mother-in-law and husband's sister that either she be thrown out of the matrimonial home or burnt her alive with kerosene oil;

(ii) An important marriage of her near relative took place on November 16, 1983 and the husband did not attend the marriage despite the request by her parents;

(iii) Husband's mother refused to give her ornaments and clothes to be worn by her at the time of said marriage. She came to Chandigarh to collect ornaments and the clothes, but was rebuked and kicked out of the house by her mother-in-law;

(iv) At the time of marriage, the wife's parents presented a F.D.R. Rs. 20,000/- to the parties. The same was in the custody of the husband. Army Rules enjoins that the husband should open a joint account with her, but he had failed to do so;

(v) The husband during his posting at Deolali enjoys furloughs.

7. The wife sent copy of this letter to the Chief of the Army Staff, Director of Artillary and the Brigade Commander. The wife also appended 'Note Below' to this complaint that the marriage of husband's younger sister was fixed for December 23, 1984 and meeting between the parties was held on December 13, 1984 and on December 15, 1984 between the husband, his mother and her parents and in the meeting, they gave a piece of paper for signatures for future use and she refused to sign that paper and the meeting ended in fiasco.

8. Pursuant to the complaint, Exhibit P-7, show cause notice was issued to the husband, Exhibit P-4, and after considering the reply, comments, Exhibit P-3, were sent by the Commanding Officer recommending that the wife and the child were not entitled to any maintenance allowance under Section 90(i) of the Army Act since they have failed to establish neglect by the Officer. However, the President of India, sanctioned maintenance allowance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 600/- per mensum with effect from October 1, 1985. The allegations made in the complaint addressed to the Divisional Commander that the husband's mother and sister either wanted to turn the wife from the matrimonial home or to burn her alive remained unsubstantiated. The husband says that the false accusation caused indescribable mental agony and lowered him in the esteem of his officers and follow colleagues. The wife did not attend the husband's sister wedding and she and her relations threatened to get the engagement cancelled. This conduct of her would be viewed seriously by the husband, who enjoys a respectable position in the society. It is also not disputed that after the birth of the child no intimation was sent to the husband or his mother and that she did not get herself admitted to the military hospital for delivery and delivered the child in a private Nursing Home and for this explanation of the husband was called for by the higher authorities. The cumulative effect of these incidents when viewed in the family background of the husband obviously suggests that these acts resulted in mental cruelty to the husband. The husband is a Lieutenant Colonel in the army. His father retired as a Major from the army. His brother is also a Colonel in the army. The family background is suggestive that they have been groomed and brought up in a decent manner and are accustomed to a civilized behaviour, which was denied by the wife. The conduct of the wife is not an ordinary wear and tear of married life, but amounts to cruelty. The husband has succeeded in proving the offence of cruelty against the wife.

9. The wife withdrew from the society of the husband in April, 1983 and she failed to join him thereafter. The husband's mother wrote letters, Exhibits P-9 and P-10, to the father and grand-father of the wife to persuade the wife to return to the matrimonial home. Her uncle and father visited the husband's house on January 14, 1984 and January 16, 1984 and agreed to bring her back on the next day, but she did not return to the matrimonial home. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and she made a statement before the Matrimonial Court that she was willing to return to the marital home and on the basis of her statement, the petition was dismissed, but she did not adhere to her statement and join the husband in the matrimonial home. The instant petition was filed on November 20, 1985. The desertion in its essence means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. The conduct as a whole which amounts to total disregard of the fundamental obligations of matrimony would constitute an intention to desert. What the law wants to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of married life. If the wife refuses to discharge such common obligations, there is a desertion. The wife refused to return to the marital home for more than 5 years without a good cause and the husband succeeded in proving that desertion was without just cause. The husband has succeeded in establishing the matrimonial offences alleged against the wife.

10. Before I part with this judgment, it is necessary to record that an attempt was made to bring about reconciliation between the parties. I talked to the parties individually and collectively and also the wife's parents and husband's mother, but it did not fructify.

11. The wife has been allowed maintenance by the army authorities and she is at present in service working as a Warden in Yatindra Public School. No provision has been made for the maintenance of the daughter born out of the wed-lock. She is unprovided for. Provision for her maintenance has to be made keeping in view the father's statute and status. I fix maintenance allowance for her at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per mensum till her marriage payable from the date of the order.

12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.