Cruelty in matrimonial law is proved on probabilities; condonation can bar relief unless later conduct revives the cause of action.

Matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act are civil in nature, so cruelty must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Cruelty under section 10(1)(b) is assessed by whether the conduct creates a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the spouse; persistent abuse, threats and humiliation can satisfy that test. Condonation operates as conditional forgiveness and restoration of marital status, and may be inferred from continued cohabitation with normal marital relations. On the facts, cruelty was established but was held to have been condoned, and no sufficient subsequent conduct revived the original cause of action, so relief failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petitioner seeking judicial separation on the ground of cruelty must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt or on a preponderance of probabilities; (ii) whether the respondent's conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and (iii) whether any established cruelty was condoned and, if so, whether subsequent conduct revived the original cause of action.

Issue (i): Whether a petitioner seeking judicial separation on the ground of cruelty must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt or on a preponderance of probabilities.

Analysis: Matrimonial proceedings under the Act are civil in nature. The standard of proof is therefore that of preponderance of probabilities, as in other civil cases. The requirement in section 23 that the court must be satisfied does not import the criminal standard. The petitioner bears the burden of proving cruelty, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The petitioner was required to establish cruelty on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Analysis: Cruelty under section 10(1)(b) is not governed by the English test of danger to life, limb, or health. The statutory question is whether the respondent treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. On the evidence, the conduct complained of included persistent abuse, threats, humiliation, and acts undermining the peace and security of the household. Such conduct was grave and weighty, and went beyond the ordinary wear and tear of married life.

Conclusion: The respondent's conduct amounted to cruelty within the meaning of section 10(1)(b).

Issue (iii): Whether any established cruelty was condoned and, if so, whether subsequent conduct revived the original cause of action.

Analysis: Condonation under section 23(1)(b) means conditional forgiveness and restoration of the offending spouse to the former marital status. The evidence showed continued cohabitation accompanied by normal sexual relations after the acts of cruelty, from which forgiveness and restoration could be inferred. The later allegations and conduct of the respondent, viewed in the context of the appellant's repeated assertions of insanity and refusal of support, were not sufficient to revive the condoned cruelty.

Conclusion: The cruelty was condoned and was not revived by subsequent conduct.

Final Conclusion: The petition for judicial separation failed because, although cruelty was proved, the petitioner had condoned it and no sufficient revival was established; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In matrimonial proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, and condonation operates as conditional forgiveness that bars relief unless a fresh matrimonial offence sufficiently revives the original ground.

---