1 CGHC010418622023 2026:CGHC:28973-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 15 of 2024 Smt. Anita Yadav W/o Shri Prakash Narayan Yadav Aged About 47 Years Caste- Yadav, R/o Near Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, Ps And Tehsil- Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Chama, Cg --- Appellant versus Prakash Narayan Yadav S/o Shri Harnayan Yadav Aged About 49 Years Caste- Yadav, R/o Near Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, Ps And Tehsil- Janjgir,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent FA(MAT) No. 338 of 2023 Prakash Narayan Yadav S/o Harnarayan Yadav Aged About 47 Years Caste Yadav, R/o Village Near Etaji Chowk, Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus Smt. Anita Yadav W/o Prakash Narayan Yadav, Aged About 43 Years Caste Yadav, R/o Infront Of J.K. Jwellers Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate (In FA(MAT) No.15 of 2024 & For Res. In FA(MAT) No. 338 of 2023) For Respondent : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate (In FA(MAT) No.15 of 2024 & For Appellant. In FA(MAT) No. 338 of 2023) Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Judgment On Board (08.07.2026) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. As both the above appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 06.11.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2022 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Accordingly, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. FA (MAT) No. 15 of 2024 is filed by wife questioning the decree of divorce granted in favour of husband and FA (MAT) No.338 of 2023 is filed by husband against the direction to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony as also to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to wife. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are that a suit under Section 13 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (In short ‘the Act of 1955’) was filed by the applicant-husband against the non-applicant- wife seeking a decree for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on the ground of physical and mental cruelty and harassment pleading therein that marriage of respondent-plaintiff was solemnized with applicant on 12.05.1997 as per Hindu rites and rituals at village – Tundra. After solemnization of marriage, applicant and non- applicant resided together as husband and wife and led a happy married life for a period of approximately 16 years. During the said period, two daughters and one son were born out of the said wedlock. It was pleaded that matrimonial relationship between applicant and non-applicant became bitter after applicant-husband was posted at 3 Malkharoda in the year 2012. Non-applicant-wife frequently quarreled with applicant-husband over trivial issues and by the year 2015, the parties had ceased to live together as husband and wife. During his posting at Baloda in the year 2017, applicant came to know that non- applicant-wife had, without informing applicant, obtained an ATM card and is withdrawing money from his bank account. When the said fact was enquired, non-applicant started abusing him and stopped preparing food for him. It was further pleaded that, whenever applicant returned home from work, non-applicant used to lock the door from inside, as a result of which he was compelled to reside at Janjgir.. Non-applicant started living separately from February, 2017. It was also pleaded that despite separation, applicant has purchased land in the name of non-applicant and is fulfilling all the matrimonial obligations. His son and non-applicant assaulted him, his mother and vandalized household items. Non-applicant is very cruel and aggressive woman. When applicant was assaulted by non-applicant, her uncle and nephew intervened. On the basis of complaint of applicant, a FIR/crime was registered against non-applicant, and the case is pending before the Court. Applicant has been residing separately for the last five years, and there is no possibility of them living together as husband and wife. 4. Defendant/wife filed written statement/reply denying the averments/allegation made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the applicant-husband himself created such circumstances that it has become impossible for her to reside with him. Applicant unnecessarily harassing her and wants to leave her and marry another woman. She prays for dismissal of suit filed by applicant. 4 5. Learned Family Court based on the pleadings made by respective parties has formulated as many as three issues for consideration and upon considering the evidence brought in record by the respective parties, has allowed the suit/application filed by applicant-husband by the impugned judgment and decree granting decree of divorce in favour of applicant-husband on the ground of cruelty. 6. Learned counsel for appellant/wife (in FA (MAT) No. 15 of 2024) would submit that learned Family Court fell into error in allowing the suit filed by applicant -husband without appreciating the evidence brought in record by the parties in appropriate manner. It is contended that appellant has always been ready and willing to reside with the respondent-husband along with her children. However, it is the respondent-husband who does not wish to reside with appellant. It is next contended that respondent-husband with intention of marrying another woman, has made false allegations against appellant and created such circumstances. Appellant-wife has never left the respondent-husband and always ready and willing to lead a matrimonial life with him. It is contended that specific ground of desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage were neither pleaded in the plaint nor established by the respondent-husband through cogent and reliable evidence. The finding recorded by the learned Family Court is based on conjectures and surmises. It is next contended that respondent-husband has failed to establish any act of physical or mental cruelty on the part of the wife. It is contended that the instances or incidents pleaded by respondent-husband do not constitute physical or mental cruelty in the eyes of law. The allegations are vague and unsupported by cogent evidence, therefore, cannot be 5 relied upon to establish cruelty for grant of decree of divorce. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.G. Dastane (Dr) v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, in case of Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301, and in case of Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742 and prays that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court be set aside 7. Learned counsel for respondent-husband opposes the grounds raised in appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for appellant and supports the impugned judgment and decree. It is contended that allegation levelled against respondent-husband is false and baseless. On the basis of the documentary and oral evidence brought on record before the learned Family Court, it has been duly established that the respondent-husband was subjected to cruelty by the appellant/wife. It is further contended that evidence adduced by respondent, both oral and documentary, clearly reflects the conduct and acts of the appellant which caused mental agony and hardship to the appellant, therefore, constituted cruelty within the meaning of law. He further submitted that the testimony of the appellant remained consistent, reliable and sufficiently proved the allegations of cruelty levelled against the respondent/wife. Learned Family Court after proper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought in record by the respective parties has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent- husband has made out a case for grant of decree of divorce on the 6 ground of cruelty, which does not call for any interference. However, he submits that the conditions imposed by the learned Family Court, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards permanent alimony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance are arbitrary. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the aforesaid conditions imposed by the learned Family Court while maintaining the decree of divorce. 8. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. The marriage between the parties and the fact that they shared more than 16 years of matrimonial relationship, during which two daughters and one son, were born out of the wedlock, are not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the parties lived together as husband and wife for a considerable period and maintained a harmonious matrimonial relationship for several years before differences arose between them. From perusal of the pleadings made in the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act would reveal that the dispute between the parties started in or around the year 2014, when the respondent- husband was posted at Malkharoda. Respondent-husband filed an application U/s. 13 (1) (a) of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of physical and mental cruelty allegedly caused by appellant-wife. 10. In order to examine allegation of cruelty, principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Samar Ghosh (supra), would be a relevant guideline wherein the Court has indicated certain illustrative 7 instances at para 101 whereby the inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 reads as under :- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. 8 (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day- to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion 9 without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 11. Case of the respondent-husband seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of physical and mental cruelty has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The allegations made, evidence produced, and circumstances brought on record by the respondent-husband are required to be considered to determine whether the grounds pleaded by the respondent-husband are proved in accordance with law. 12. Applicant-husband to prove his case examined himself as (P.W.-1) and placed on record various documents of criminal complaint case filed by Bishnu Bai (mother) against her daughter-in-law (non-applicant) and grand son. He deposed in his evidence as per the plaint 10 averments. He stated that, after his transfer from Malkharouda to Baloda in the year 2017, he resided in a rented house situated on Budgahan Road. He stated that non-applicant -wife secretly obtained ATM card of his salary account and withdrew money without his knowledge or consent and when he came to know about withdrawals and questioned his wife, she started abusing and physically assaulted him, stopped communicating with him, and refused to prepare meals for him. He further deposed that when he used to return back from work, his wife used to lock the door of the house due to which, respondent had to stay out of the house. Due to this act of his wife, he got upset and came to Janjgir and started doing his duty from there. He further stated that his office colleagues made efforts to counsel his wife in order to resolve the matrimonial dispute; however, she refused to accept their advice or counselling. He also deposed that, while they were residing at Janjgir, the non-applicant wife threw his belongings out of the house, physically assaulted him, and abused him by stating that, "from today, you are dead to me." He further stated that she broke her bangles and wiped off the vermilion from her forehead. It was also stated that, thereafter parties started living separately. Non- applicant-wife, along with Tushar, assaulted applicant-husband and his mother on several occasions. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has not lodged any report against wife. He also admitted that he and his wife spent more than 16 years of happy matrimonial relationship. In his cross-examination, he stated that the dispute between the parties arose on account of the ATM card, alleging that the non-applicant-wife had secretly obtained the ATM card of his salary account without his knowledge and withdrew money. He admitted that 11 he has not lodged any report against wife obtaining ATM and withdrawal of money by her. However, he voluntarily stated that he filed a complaint before the Bank, but he has not placed on record the copy of complaint made to the Bank. In cross-examination, he further admitted that he has not lodged any report against non-applicant-wife for assaulting him, for stealing household articles and of causing damage to the house hold articles. 13. Bishnu Bai (P.W.-3), mother of applicant-husband has also deposed in her examination-in-chief, in accordance with version of applicant regarding minor incidents that occurred between applicant and non- applicant as also with regard to matrimonial disputes between them. In her cross-examination, she clearly admitted that her son had not made any report to the police regarding quarrel that had taken place between her daughter-in-law and her son. She stated that she had lodged report about disputes between applicant - non-applicant to the police station on three occasions and thereafter, she stated that she had lodged police report against her daughter-in-law and her grandson alleging that they had assaulted her. In paragraph 13 of her cross- examination, she categorically admitted that neither her daughter-in- law nor her grandson had assaulted her son i.e. the applicant. 14. Yash Kumar Ogre (P.W.-2) has stated in his examination-in-chief that one day he went to the house of applicant and found applicant standing outside the house and the house was locked from inside and upon asking he was informed by applicant that he has no talk with his wife and she has locked the house from inside. He was also informed that they have no relation as husband and wife and his wife used to 12 abuse and assault him. He was also informed about secretly obtaining of ATM card and withdrawing money by his wife. He further stated that he was informed by applicant - husband that at Janjgir, his wife threw his belongings and committed marpit. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not personally witnessed the non- applicant -wife abusing or assaulting applicant-husband. He further admitted that he had not seen the non-applicant wiping off her vermilion or breaking her bangles. The witness also deposed that non- applicant-wife wiping off her vermilion, locking the door, abusing, and assaulting the applicant was based solely on what had been narrated to him by the applicant-husband. 15. Non-applicant-wife examined herself as NAW-1 and deposed that applicant-husband had subjected her and her children to physical and mental cruelty. She further stated that applicant himself created such circumstances that she became distressed by his conduct and leave him. She also deposed that the applicant, under the influence of his mother, frequently abused her and her children on petty grounds. She further deposed that the applicant-husband, without any justifiable reason, wanted to leave her and marry another woman. Her mother-in- law was an old aged lady and non-applicant-wife herself performed all household works. She further stated that she wishes to reside with her husband and continue her matrimonial life. In her cross-examination, she denied all the adverse suggestion given to her by applicant. She also denied the suggestion that she used to lock the door of house when applicant returned home from work and would not open it even after he called her. She further denied that she had not maintained 13 matrimonial relations with the applicant since 2015. In paragraph 16 of her cross-examination, she also denied the suggestion given by applicant that she had withdrawn money using the applicant's ATM card without his knowledge. 16. Hon’ble Supreme in case of N.G. Dastane (Dr) v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, has considered the ground of mental cruelty and observed thus :- “30. An awareness of foreign decisions could be a useful asset in interpreting our own laws. But it has to be remembered that we have to interpret in this case a specific provision of a specific enactment, namely, Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. What constitutes cruelty must depend upon the terms of this statute which provides: “10. (1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition to the District Court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the other party— (b) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party;” The inquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. It is not necessary, as under the English law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause “danger” to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly, 14 danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension of it is a higher requirement than a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with the other. * * * * 46. In regard to the conduct of the respondent as reflected in her admissions, two contentions raised on her behalf must be considered. It is urged in the first place that the various letters containing admissions were written by her under coercion. There is no substance in this contention. In her written statement, the respondent alleged that the appellant's parents had coerced her into writing the letters. At the trial she shifted her ground and said that the coercion proceeded from the appellant himself. That apart, at a time when the marriage had gone as under and the respondent sent to the appellant formal letters resembling a lawyer's notice, some of them by registered post, no allegation was made that the appellant or his parents had obtained written admissions from her. Attention may be drawn in this behalf to the letters Exs. 299 and 314 dated March 23 and May 6, 1961 or to the elaborate complaint Ex. 318 dated May 19, 1961 which she made to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Prior to that, on September 23, 1960 she had drawn up a list of her complaints (Ex. 424) which begins by saying: “He has oppressed me in numerous ways like the following”. But she does not speak therein of any admission or writing having been obtained from her. Further, letters like Exs. 271 and 272 dated respectively June 23 and July 10, 1960 which besides containing admissions on her part also contain allegations against the appellant could certainly not have been obtained by coercion. Finally, considering that the respondent was always surrounded 15 by a group of relatives who had assumed the role of marriage-counsellors, it is unlikely that any attempt to coerce her into making admissions would have been allowed to escape unrecorded. After all, the group here consists of greedy letter-writers. 17. In case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of mental cruelty has observed as under :- “16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.” (Emphasis supplied) 16 18. In case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue, has observed as under :- “10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. 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, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no 17 direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression “cruelty” has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60 : AIR 1988 SC 121] .) 12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the 18 conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. 13. The court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a art of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to 19 the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. 14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. [See N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326 : AIR 1975 SC 1534] .] 19. In case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the concept of cruelty and observed thus :- “38. D. Tolstoy in his celebrated book The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, (6th Edn., p. 61) defined cruelty in these words: “Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to 20 cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.” 39. The concept of cruelty in matrimonial matters was aptly discussed in the English case in Bertram v. Bertram [1944 P 59 : 113 LJP 52 : 171 LT 167 (CA)] (P at p. 60) per Scott, L.J. observed: “Very slight fresh evidence is needed to show a resumption of the cruelty, for cruelty of character is bound to show itself in conduct and behaviour. Day in and day out, night in and night out.” 40. In Cooper v. Cooper [1950 WN 200 : 48 LGR 377 (HL)] it was observed as under: “It is true that the more serious the original offence, the less grave need be the subsequent acts to constitute a revival.” 41. Lord Denning, L.J. in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky [(1950) 2 All ER 398 : 1951 P 38 (CA)] (All ER at p. 403 H) observed as under: “If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find ourselves granting divorce for incompatibility of temperament. This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs where the institution of marriage itself is imperilled.” 20. In case of Gurbux Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue of cruelty, observed that matrimonial life has to be assessed as a whole, and that a few isolated incidents occurring over a period of time would not, by themselves, constitute cruelty and held as under :- 21 “15. It is true that even a single act of violence which is of grievous and inexcusable nature satisfies the test of cruelty. Persistence in inordinate sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be cruelty if it injures the other spouse. There is no such complaint by the appellant. In the case on hand, as stated earlier, the appellant has projected few instances in which, according to him, the respondent abused his parents. We have verified all the averments in the petitions, reply statement, written submissions as well as the evidence of both parties. We are satisfied that on the basis of such instances, marriage cannot be dissolved. 16. The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty. Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterised as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sustained unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. Both the appellant and the respondent being highly qualified persons, the appellant being Principal in ITI College, the respondent working as a Librarian in a government institute, an isolated friction on some occasion like festival of lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the marriage.” 22 21. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the burden of proving the allegation of cruelty lies upon respondent-husband, who is required to adduce reliable and admissible evidence in support of the grounds on which the petition has been filed. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent-husband has failed to prove the allegations of physical and mental cruelty against the appellant- wife by leading cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence. Although respondent-husband has alleged various acts of cruelty, including assault, abuse, refusal to maintain matrimonial relations, locking of the house, and unauthorized withdrawal of money through ATM, his allegations remained unsubstantiated. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not lodged any report against the appellant-wife regarding the alleged incidents of assault, unauthorized withdrawal of money, theft of household articles, or damage to household property. He also failed to produce any document regarding the alleged complaint made to the Bank in respect of withdrawal of money through ATM. Version of respondent-husband was not corroborated by another witness PW-3, Yash Kumar Ogre, this witness has admitted that he had not personally witnessed the appellant-wife abusing or assaulting the respondent-husband, nor had he seen her breaking bangles or removing vermilion. His testimony regarding such incidents was based only on the information supplied by the respondent-husband. Similarly, PW-2, Bishnu Bai, mother of the respondent-husband, also failed to support the allegation of physical cruelty, as she categorically admitted that neither appellant-wife nor her grandson had assaulted respondent-husband. On the contrary appellant-wife denied the 23 allegations levelled against her and stated that she was willing to continue her matrimonial relationship with the respondent-husband. Her testimony remained consistent, and no material evidence was brought on record during her cross-examination to disbelieve or discredit her statement. Pleading made in application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 of assault to respondent-husband to be bald in view of the evidence of his mother. 22. Respondent-husband in para-13 of his evidence has stated that dispute with appellant/wife started on account of his salary and ATM. He also made statement before the Court that appellant/wife herself got ATM prepared. He also admitted he has not made any compliant or report against appellant/wife of preparing ATM and withdrawal of amount. Though he had stated that he had made report in the Bank, however, no documents in this regard has been submitted and further admitted that he has not placed in record the copy of complaint made to the Bank. From the aforementioned evidence it is apparent that dispute between the appellant/wife and respondent/husband is not of such nature that it can be said that appellant/wife treated respondent/husband with cruelty. In application U/s.13 of the Act of 1955, it is pleaded that respondent/husband is being assaulted by appellant/wife along with his son Tushar, however, Bishnu Bai Yaday (P.W.-2) (mother of the applicant) in para-13 of her evidence had admitted that her daughter-in-law (appellant) and her grand son had not assaulted his son (respondent). From the aforementioned facts it is appearing that respondent/husband by way of amendment in the copy 24 of plaint in para 8-A pleaded about assault by appellant/wife along with her son upon respondent, is absolutely false and baseless. 23. From documents exhibited by respondent/husband it is reflecting that dispute started on account of demand of money made by appellant/wife with her husband as also the demand of money made by her son Tushar from her grand mother for the purpose of meeting livelihood and other expenditure. From the contents of memo submitted by the police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ex.P-5), it is appearing that complaint of appellant/wife her children are that respondent/husband was not taking care of his wife and children, therefore, they are required to make demand of money time and again. Demand of money by wife from her husband and children from their father to meet out their day to day expenses and towards expenditure of daughters’ studies of respondent in the opinion of this Court cannot be cruel act committed by wife/appellant or her children against her husband/respondent but in the opinion of this Court it will fall within illustration made in case of Samar Ghosh (supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court of trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life and it would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. 24. Criminal case lodged by Bishnu Bai Yadav was initially against her grand-son, who came to her and demanded money to meet the expenses to which she denied and thereafter, some altercation took place. Another report which is lodged to police against appellant and her son in Crime No.23 of 2022 would show that Tushar came to complainant therein (grand mother) demanding money for purpose of 25 studies of his sister. The allegations made against appellant in that crime was that few days ago, she damaged television. In the aforementioned facts of the case reasons assigned by complainant for lodging criminal case appears to be of a demand of money for meeting their day to day needs. 25. From the aforementioned evidence adduced by respondent/applicant it is apparent that dispute arose only on account of alleged obtaining of ATM card from Bank of account of husband and withdrawal of money. ATM is to be prepared by the Bank at the request of account holder after completing formalities. Even if the said statements of the respondent/husband is to be accepted, then after coming into knowledge, appellant could have lodged report against his wife as also the bank employees, no such documentary evidence is placed on record, therefore, the said allegation of respondent/husband remain unsubstantiated. 26. To constitute cruelty as provided under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, the conduct complained of such be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. 27. One more thing is important in the facts of the case that allegation of manhandling by mother of respondent is against son of respondent/husband against his grand mother, therefore, the act of one person can not be attributed to the another. 26 28. From the aforementioned discussions, it is appearing that learned Family Court has not properly evaluated the evidence brought in record by the respondent/husband in the facts of the case where the dispute between the parties is arising from family law and have erroneously came to the conclusion that act and behaviour of the appellant/wife against respondent/husband was cruel, therefore, the said finding recorded by the learned Family Court is not sustainable and it is liable to be set-aside. 29. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant-wife bearing FA(MAT) No. 15 of 2024 deserves to be and it is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of divorce dated 06.11.2023 is set- aside. 30. Since the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2023 has been set aside, no further orders are required to be passed in FA (MAT) No. 338 of 2023 filed by respondent-husband. Accordingly, FA (MAT) No. 338 of 2023 stands dismissed. 31. Accordingly decree be drawn. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Balram