Mental cruelty under Hindu marriage law was not proved where allegations were stale, vague, and condoned by continued cohabitation.

Isolated, stale, or broadly pleaded matrimonial incidents, especially where the spouses continued to cohabit for years and the conduct was thus condoned, do not meet the test of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband's divorce claim failed because the allegations lacked particulars, were not shown to be recurring or proximate to the petition, and did not establish cruelty on the governing legal standard. With cruelty not proved, the wife's case that the husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable cause was made out, and restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 was granted; the marriage was held to subsist.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the husband had proved mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 so as to justify dissolution of marriage. (ii) Whether the wife was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether the husband had proved mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 so as to justify dissolution of marriage.

Analysis: The pleaded instances were mostly stale, isolated, or too general to constitute mental cruelty. Incidents said to have occurred soon after marriage stood condoned by the parties' continued cohabitation for years, including till after the birth of the second child. Allegations pertaining to later periods lacked particulars and did not show recurring or continuing conduct proximate to the filing of the divorce petition. A few stray incidents, even if accepted, did not satisfy the test of mental cruelty as laid down in the governing law.

Conclusion: The husband failed to establish mental cruelty, and the decree of divorce could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the wife was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Analysis: Once the allegation of cruelty failed, the evidence supported the wife's case that the husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable cause. The statutory entitlement to restitution was therefore made out on the facts found.

Conclusion: The wife was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights.

Final Conclusion: The divorce decree was set aside, the marriage was held to subsist, and restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the wife.

Ratio Decidendi: Isolated or stale matrimonial incidents, particularly when condoned by subsequent cohabitation and unsupported by particulars or proximity to the petition, do not constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

---