Respondents side:-

Whether Respondent is liable of not fulfilling her responsibilities as a spouse?

It is humbly submitted to this honorable supreme court that the respondent has never been inconsistent
when it came to fulfilling her duties as a spouse she on all occasions has tried to save her marriage which
is to be proved as the argument advances.

As per the facts of the case on paragraph 1 line no 9 it has clearly been stated that how the events took
place which is:-

“The relatives of the respondent responded to the advertisement and there was mutual consultation
between the parties, which led to the marriage of appellant with the respondent on 30.9.1990. After the
marriage, the appellant and respondent stayed together for someperiod and thereafter, the appellant
left India for France. The respondent was asked to join him after having obtained the visa and
completing other formalities. The respondent, after a period of six months, joined the appellant in
France. It appears that the marital life of the appellant and the respondent ran into rough weather from
the very beginning of their stay in France. There used to be occasional quarrel between the parties. A
daughter, Radha, was born to them on 10.6.1992. On 22nd June 1993, the appellant, respondent and
their daughter Radha came to India, but the appellant returned to France on 30th December 1993 itself
and the respondent joined him only on 10th may 1994. In february 1995, the respondent along with her
daughter returned to India and misunderstandings between the parties deepened and ultimately the
appellant filed application for divorce on 27th January, 1997”

Even by giving a read to the paragraph stated above it is clearly evident that the chronology of events
are stating that the respondent even on being a lady of knowledge and ambition has always joyfully
taken part in each and every matrimonial responsibility which even made her sacrifice her own
ambitions of work. As mentioned in the fact sheet the respondent had to give up her job as a sociology
professor and move with the appellant to France which clearly shows the giving nature she had and also
settles the debate of her being a lazy person. All the points on which the appellant has been demanding
a decree in his favor are baseless and the appellant was himself constantly inflicting the respondent with
mental and physical agony and like any other person who is facing harassment of such nature would do
she retaliated and did not hold back as she was a lady of well read mind and was fully aware of her
rights. Due to her retaliations she was often considered to be a lady of arrogance by the neighborhood
so the appellant took the advantage of this fact and tarnished the image of the respondent among the
people in the neighborhood. The lady was not given proper care during her days of pregnancy and even
at the time of her delivery. Respondent being a lady of loving nature tried giving another chance to the
marriage on 10th May 1994 and returned back to France to make a fresh start in the hope that her
husband might not treat her the way she has been treated in the past but to her surprise things got
worse and she had to leave.

Section 13 (i) of hindu marriage act states the meaning of cruelty and (ii) states the consequences of it .
 (i) Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and
unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or
mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of
mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular
society, to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they
live. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or an
inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes
apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this
conduct amounts to cruelty; Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426.

(ii) The expression “Cruelty” as envisaged under section 13 of the Act clearly admits in its a mbit
and scope such acts which may even cause mental agony to aggrieved party. Intention to be
cruel is not an essential element of cruelty as envisaged under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act.
It is sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type that it becomes impossible for spouses to live
together

The section totally clears out that any circumstances that can make someone so harassed that it is
impossible to reside anymore with the harasser can be a ground of divorce which has clearly been done
in this case although the appellant has been playing the victim he clearly is not. It has clearly been
established by the argument that the respondent had all the reasons to leave the matrimonial house
and stay away from such a cruel spouse.