1 CGHC010059192023 2026:CGHC:29830-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 70 of 2023 1. Dr. Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Thanuram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Keshdabri, P.S. Saja, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Chandrakiran Sahu W/o Dr. Praveen Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhedni, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 14.07.2026 1. This is husband’s appeal against dismissal of his petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, which was not found proved by learned Family Judge, Bemetara. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 2. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that appellant husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1995 for grant of decree of divorce pleading that marriage between appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 2.3.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals in village Bhedni. After 2-4 days of marriage, respondent started maltreating / misbehaving appellant-husband and his family members, which they avoided expecting change in her behaviour in a month or two, but there was no change at all and she continued misbehaving with appellant-husband and his family members as before and gone to the extent of calling his father-mother ‘illiterate’. She used to give threats that she would commit suicide and would falsely implicate him and his family members in a case of dowry. Father of respondent-wife was requested to make her understand, but he has not paid any heed. On 06.04.2020 appellant submitted written report in police station Saja regarding threat of suicide and threat of false implication in a dowry case by respondent. On 12.04.2020 respondent-wife lodged report against appellant and his entire family regarding demand of dowry as a result in that night itself the entire family was summoned in police station where despite all efforts to persuade the respondent wife, she did not agree to withdraw her complaint and left with her father to her parental home. Appellant and respondent 3 were called at Woman Cell on 5.5.2020 for counseling in which she levelled false allegation of harassment against appellant-husband and his entire family. In counselling proceeding dated 12.5.2020, respondent admitted that she has misbehaved with appellant-husband and his family members, which she will not repeat, and then appellant agreed to take her with him. However, her conduct and behaviour did not change towards them and she again returned in her earlier offensive and arrogant attitude, threatened them to commit suicide and to implicate them in false dowry case. Respondent was not doing household works, therefore, appellant has kept one servant. Respondent wife made false accusation that appellant is having extramarital affair with the wife of his brothe, which has caused great mental pain to him. Respondent never discharged her marital obligation, she had always quarrelled with him. During covid-19, while appellant was posted in hospital, respondent went to parental home on the pretext of writing exam and since then she is residing in her parental home. Appellant had requested respondent several times to change her behaviour and attitude, but her behavior did not change and she continued to maltreat and misbehave with him and his family members. After marriage, respondent wife is continuously pressurizing her to live separately from his 4 parents, which he refused saying that his job is contractual and not permanent, he can be discontinued from service at any moment, therefore, till his job is permanent it would be difficult to live separately. Bearing all hardships, appellant made efforts for cohabitation with respondent wife, but there is no change in her attitude, therefore, it has now become impossible for him to live with her. Therefore, necessity has arisen to file petition seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. Respondent-wife filed written statement and denied the averments made in divorce petition, except admitted facts. It was pleaded that since the day of marriage, appellant and his family members started harassing her mentally. After marriage, all her ornaments, except mangal sutra, were taken by mother of appellant, which were not returned to her till date. Appellant and his family members tortured her for asking her father to sell one acre land and give a car to them. She never misbehaved or maltreated her father-in-law and mother-in-law or any other member of family nor threatened to implicate them in a case of dowry. Appellant made false allegations against her in order to make out a case for divorce. Respondent wants to live with her husband, discharge her marital obligations and she does not want to dissolve the marriage. She never gave threat of committing suicide or 5 involving appellant and his family members in a false case of dowry. On call being made by her to police regarding dowry related torture by appellant and his family members, the police came, took them to police station and there respondent had lodged FIR regarding torture for demand of dowry and assault against appellant and his family members. After counseling proceeding, she accompanied appellant to matrimonial home and was doing all household works like dusting, cleaning, cooking food etc. and she had no quarrel with anyone in the family. In fact, mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent often provoked appellant against her, due to which he used to harass her mentally but despite that she continuously discharging her marital obligations and never quarrelled. Since the demand of car was not fulfilled, appellant and his family members wanted to oust her from the house so that they would perform second marriage and therefore, on 02.08.2020 after quarreling with her, appellant and his family members have ousted her, however, somehow she had convinced them to allow her to reside. On 22.09.2020, parents of appellant went outside after locking her inside the house. On being called, her father came and requested appellant not to harass her. However, parents of appellant had quarreled with her and ousted her from the house. On 17.11.2020, father of respondent informed father of appellant 6 over telephone that he is coming to drop respondent whereupon father of appellant while hurling abuses asked not to come. Even then, her father brought her to her matrimonial home but parents of appellant did not allow her to enter the house and therefore she returned back to her parental home with her father. She has further stated that she never pressurized appellant to live separately from his parents. Since the demand of dowry (car) of appellant and his family members is not fulfilled, appellant does not want to keep respondent with her. Respondent has always respected her in-laws. She had not committed any cruelty, rather she was mentally tortured by her husband. 4. On the basis of the averments made by the parties, learned family Court framed issues and parties led their evidence. Considering the evidence brought on record by the parties, the learned Family Court held that the ground of cruelty is not found proved against respondent-wife and thus refused to dissolve the marriage by granting a decree of divorce. Hence, present appeal has been filed by appellant husband. 5. Learned counsel for appellant-husband would submit that the petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties by way of a decree of divorce was filed on the ground cruelty of the respondent and various instances of ‘cruelty’ were proved by evidence, but erroneously the same have not been taken into 7 account by learned Family Court which resulted in dismissal of divorce petition of appellant and thereby committed a grave error of fact and law. He submits that behaviour of respondent- wife with appellant and his family members was disrespectful and discourteous. She was in the habit of insulting appellant and his family members. In counselling proceeding, she assured that she would not again misbehave with appellant and his family members. However, when she came back in the appellant’s family for the second time, she repeated similar activities. She insisted the appellant to live separately from the family. She used to give threat to commit suicide and to implicate him and his family members in a false case of dowry. She had lodged false FIR against appellant and his family members alleging that after marriage, they subjected her with cruelty and torture in connection with demand of dowry. Respondent has been living separately since September 2020 and she never shown any inclination to live with the appellant. Above conduct on the part of respondent-wife coupled with long separation amounts to mental cruelty caused to appellant and indicates that marital relations between the parties have ended and there is no possibility of revival of marital relationship between them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent wife opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellant on the ground 8 that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed on due appreciation of the evidence. He submits that respondent never treated her husband or his family member with cruelty. She never showed disrespect to him or his parents. She had performed all household affairs without any objection day and night, she still have a great respect to her husband and her in- laws. She had never threatened to commit suicide or to implicate them in a false case. Due to persistent dowry demand and torture thereof, she lodged FIR against the appellant and his family members. She never put pressure upon appellant to live separately from his parents. She is all along anxious to put up in the matrimonial home, cohabit with appellant-husband and discharge all her marital obligations. He further submits that on account of non-fulfillment of demand of car, respondent was not only assaulted but also ousted from the house by appellant and his parents and therefore, it is incorrect that respondent-wife is residing in her parents' house on her own. He submits that appellant could not establish the ground of cruelty in accordance with law. He has levelled baseless allegations against the respondent - wife, which he could not prove, therefore, on due appreciation of the evidence, learned Court below dismissed the petition for grant of decree of divorce filed to appellant. 9 7. We have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record of family court. 8. Appellant-husband sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the various acts of respondent-wife detailed in the divorce petition caused mental cruelty to him of the degree that maintenance of matrimonial home was not possible. 9. The word ‘cruelty’ has nowhere been defined in the Act of 1955. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. 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. 10. In case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, Hon’ble Supreme Court has made some observations with regard to the term ‘cruelty’ which may profitably be reproduced here as they are still relevant:- “98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of ―mental cruelty‖ within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should 10 even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system 100.Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 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 11 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. (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 12 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 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. In case of Ramchander vs Ananta, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 539, Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under:- “10. The expression ―cruelty‖ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1) (i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily 13 a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case [Samar Ghosh v.Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511] this Court set out illustrative cases where inference of ―mental cruelty‖ can be drawn and they are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” 12. As would be seen from the import of above decisions, no specific parameters or straight jacket formula can be laid down to determine as to what act of an offending spouse would constitute cruelty to the other spouse in a given case. However, it is manifest that burden of proof lies only on the spouse seeking divorce to establish his/her case. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels and normal wear and tear of married life, which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. In the light of exposition of law as held above in the aforesaid decisions, we will scrutinize factual and evidentiary part in the instant case applying the same principles of law. 13. Appellant/husband before trial Court has deposed in his statement that after 2-3 days of marriage, respondent started disrespecting him and his family members. He tolerated 14 misbehavior of respondent considering that her nature may be improved in future, but there was no improvement in her conduct. She continued to show disrespect and disregard to him and his family members. She used to insult his parents by calling him illiterate. She threatened to commit suicide and to implicate them in a false case of dowry. On 06.4.2020 a report was lodged by him in concerned police station and thereafter his wife lodged report against them on 12.4.2020. In the counseling proceeding, respondent apologized for her misbehavior with appellant and his family members and stated that she will not repeat. After one week of counseling, respondent came back to her matrimonial home and she again started disrespecting him and his parents. She insulted him and his family members by hurling filthy abuses. He kept on tolerating all the tortures with the hope that she would mend herself and live in the matrimonial home peacefully but of no avail. Respondent-wife has been insisting upon him to live separately from his parents to which he did not agree. She refused to eat anything which is being brought by him or his family members. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent stayed with him for about 1½ month and she has been living in her parental home since September 2020. He admitted that his wife called the police by dialing 112 and thereafter police took them to police station. He admitted that 15 after marriage, he did not take her wife to honeymoon or any other place. He admitted that he does not remember whether he had gone to drop and bring back her wife from her parental home. On being asked about presence of his wife on 6th April, he expressed his ignorance. He admitted that family disputes are resolved at community level but he never made any complaint at community level. At the time of Diwali festival, his wife had come to A.K. Hospital to talk to him but he was busy, therefore, did not talk. 14. Sukriti Bai Sahu (PW-2), Chintaram (PW-3), Prabhu Sahu (PW-4), Madhu Sahu (PW-5) and Ramsahay Sahu (PW-6), who are relatives and neighbourer of appellant, also supported the statement of appellant-husband. 15. Appellant has exhibited the documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14, which are copy of order dismissing earlier suit for divorce filed by appellant, application filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, copy of notice under Section 155 CrPC, copy of report dated 2.9.2020 of Police Station Saja, copy of complaint dated 06.04.2020, copy of complaint dated 13.04.2020, copy of complaint dated 01.09.2020, copy of complaint before Women Cell Saja dated 15.04.2020, copy of memo of Station In-charge dated 13.04.2020, copy of complaint dated 12.04.2020, copy of MLC, copy of counseling 16 proceedings and copy of complaint dated 12.5.2020 before Women Cell Saja. 16. Respondent wife (DW-1) stated in her deposition before the family Court that reception of her marriage was organized on 3.3.2020; in the night of reception of marriage, appellant went somewhere leaving her alone. On 5.3.2020, all her ornaments were taken forcibly by her in-laws saying that she has not brought car in dowry. Appellant thereafter started harassing and torturing her physically and mentally and he used to say that he will perform three marriages, he did not want child from her and he treated her like an animal. There was no maid in the house and she was doing all household works. She denied that she had extended threat of committing suicide and falsely implicating in a case of dowry. In order to save her marriage, she withdrew her complaint regarding dowry by giving in writing that she does not want any action on her report. On 02.09.2020 when she returned from her parental home after Tija festival, her father-in-law had thrown her belongings outside the house, abused her father and asked them to go away saying that her husband is not in the house. When she informed this incident to her husband over telephone, he also asked her to go back to parental home as he does not want to live with her. On 23.9.2020, parents of her husband had quarreled with her and her father and thrown 17 her from their house. On 17.11.2020 when her father went to drop at her matrimonial home, her father-in-law did not allow her to enter into the house saying that as car is not given in dowry, they will not keep her. Thereafter, on 19.11.2020 she visited hospital of appellant along with her father, however, he also ousted her and refused to keep her with him. On 04.11.2020 appellant had instituted a divorce petition on false grounds, which he withdrawn on 14.1.2021. She also came to know that appellant had lodged a false report against her on which no action was take by police. She does not want to leave appellant nor want to give divorce to him. She wants to live with her husband. 17. Chintamani (DW-2), Kewal Sahu (DW-3), Smt. Taramati (DW- 4), and Basant Sahu (DW-5), also supported statement of respondent. She has exhibited documents which are marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4, which are revenue documents. 18. Ex.P-1 is the order dated 14.1.2021 by which divorce petition filed earlier by appellant husband has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after one year of marriage. Ex.P-2 is the divorce application filed by appellant-husband before the Family Court, Bemetara. Ex.P-3 is the application filed under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC for withdrawal of divorce petition with liberty to file after one year of marriage. 18 19. Ex.P-4 is the notice under Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by which complaint lodged by appellant against respondent wife was treated as a complaint alleging non-cognizable offence. 20. Ex.P-11 is the report lodged by respondent-wife against her husband and his family members alleging that she is subjected to cruelty and torture by them for not bringing car in dowry. Based on this report, respondent was medically examined vide Ex.P-12 and the doctor noticed linear abrasions caused by hard and blunt object. Registration of report led to initiation of counseling proceeding before women counseling cell at Mahila Thana Saja. In the counseling, contention of respondent was recorded on 12.5.2020 wherein she has voluntarily stated that she wants to go with her husband. She does not want any action on the report submitted by her. 21. From the above discussion of evidence and documents of the parties, it is clear that marriage was solemnized on 2.3.2020 and on 22.9.2020 respondent/wife was ousted from her matrimonial home. Thus, she has resided only for a period of about six months in her matrimonial home and after that she is residing at her parental home. It is also clear that appellant- husband submitted complaints (Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7, Ex.P- 8) against respondent wife alleging cruelties against him. He 19 had also filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 which was dismissed for being premature and thereafter he has filed present divorce petition after completion of one year of marriage. In the pleadings or evidence, appellant- husband had not averred that he made any effort or had taken any recourse for any proceedings to bring his wife back. It has also come in his evidence that after being ousted from matrimonial home, when respondent-wife came to meet him at hospital, he did not talk to her. The aforementioned conduct of appellant-husband indicates that intention of appellant husband since inception of marriage was to somehow get rid of his wife in one way or the other. 22. True it is that respondent wife also filed complaint of demand of dowry against appellant and his family members. However, in conciliation proceeding drawn at Women Cell, Saja she expressed her desire of not proceeding further with her complaint regarding dowry against and she is ready to go and live with her husband irrespective of circumstances in which he keeps her. It has also come in evidence of respondent that after being thrown out from matrimonial, she tried to join her husband or return to her matrimonial home but she was not entertained by her husband and denied access in her matrimonial home. It is also appearing from the record that after being driven away from matrimonial home, she did not 20 take recourse to any legal remedy against appellant and his family members. Whereas, in such cases, after leaving the matrimonial home, all kinds of civil and criminal proceedings are initiated by the wife against the husband and his family members. This conduct of respondent wife clearly indicates that she is desperate to save her marriage and she had all the intention to go back to matrimonial home, but it was appellant who is not interested. 23. Appellant-husband has alleged cruelty on the ground that respondent-wife was threatening to commit suicide. However, there is neither any specific pleading nor any evidence on record to show that respondent-wife ever indulged in any overt act in pursuance of such alleged threats. In the absence of concrete material, this allegation remains unsubstantiated. 24. As far as allegation of appellant husband with regard to demand by respondent wife for separate residence is concerned, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that no cogent evidence in this regard was adduced by appellant. Appellant had examined his family members in support of his case, but none of them has uttered a single word in their testimonies about the demand of respondent-wife of separate residence. Their testimonies is conspicuously silent on this aspect. It may be noticed that respondent wife in counseling proceeding has expressed her desire to live with 21 appellant husband in whatever circumstance he keeps her. Hence, the ground raised by appellant-husband that wife exerted pressure on him to live separately from his parents, appears to be ipsi dixit of appellant husband. 25. Another ground raised by appellant-husband on the issue of cruelty is that respondent-wife allegedly threatened to implicate him in a false case of dowry demand. True it is that respondent wife filed a complaint regarding demand of dowry against appellant and his family members, however, from the records it is appearing that, during reconciliation proceedings at Women Cell Saja, she voluntarily agreed to withdraw her complaint after expressing her unequivocal desire to resume cohabitation with her husband in whatever circumstances he chose to keep her and thereafter they had resumed cohabitation. This conduct of respondent-wife demonstrates that withdrawal of complaint regarding dowry was not on account of allegations being adjudicated as false or baseless, but was motivated by her intention to resume marital relationship. Hence, mere filing of a complaint by respondent- wife alleging torture on account of demand of dowry cannot, by itself, be said to be an act of cruelty, which could entitle the other spouse to seek a decree of divorce. Resorting to legal remedy by itself is no reason to infer cruelty and such action can be treated as cruelty only if it is established that the 22 proceedings were instituted maliciously and without any basis in fact. 26. As far as other instances of cruelty described by appellant- husband is concerned, on being taken together, are unable to show any exceptional behavior on the part of respondent-wife which could constitute cruelty for dissolving the marriage between the parties. Chronology of events, noted above, only suggest that respondent wife was insulting him and his parents; despite forbearance and forgiveness on the part of appellant, she continued to misbehave and disrespect him and his parents; in absence of appellant, she was not providing food to his parents, not doing household works due to which they have to keep a servant/maid; she insisted to live separately from his parents and she had treated them as untouchable and refused to have eatables saying that she does not have faith on them. None of above instances goes to show that the respondent had committed such cruelty upon appellant which made it impossible for him to live with the respondent. The allegations, as aforementioned, made by appellant would at the most only suggest that there were occasional outburst of anger, rude language or austerity of temper, which may amount to a misconduct but cannot be termed as cruelty on the part of respondent wife. These instances may suggest strained relationship between the 23 parties, but as a whole do not support the plea of appellant- husband for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly meted out to him by respondent-wife since his marriage on 2.3.2020 till she returned to her parental home in September 2020, more so when respondent wife has throughout shown her readiness and willingness to go to her matrimonial home and resume cohabitation with her husband. 27. In case of Joydeep Majumdar v Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct complained of must be "grave" and "weighty" and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced herein below:- “10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who alleges mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and 24 the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party.” 28. 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. Marriage is not like a partnership at will or a house of cards. But the spouses should strive to defend the institution of marriage, rather than dissolve it. In married life normal wear and tear is required to be tolerated by both the partners. While they share the same roof, same bed, they are required to be tolerant to each other. Therefore, 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. Ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to the matrimonial court. 25 29. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the instances raised by appellant in his pleadings and statement before the Family Court are mere trivial irritations and quarrels between the spouses, which are normal wear and tear of married life and which happen in day-to-day married life, and the same does not constitute ‘cruelty’. It cannot be said that the behaviour of the respondent is of such a nature which could render it extremely difficult for him to live with respondent any longer, particularly, when respondent-wife has throughout expressed her intention to continue with marital ties and go back to her matrimonial home, the prayer for dissolution if allowed, would amount to giving undue advantage to appellant without any fault of respondent-wife. 30. For the foregoing, we are of the view that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court do not suffer from any such error of law or facts or lack of appreciation of evidence which could render it perverse. Hence, the appeal being meritless is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-