Honble PALLI, J. — Husband appellant has filed this appeal against the judgement and decree dated 4.3.1994 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent wife. (2). In her petition for divorce the respondent wife has stated that marriage between the parties took place on 23.10.1991 according to Muslim rites and immediately after their marriage when she was taken into the family of in-laws, there was a wedding on the next day of the daughter of her husbands elder brother. After staying for that day the wife came back to her parental house as there was a wedding of her brother. It was after 8 days the husband came to fetch her and she accompanied him. It is said that a room was provided to the couple, where they lived for 2-4 days and thereafter she, her husband and husbands father and mother went to Kapasan and from there to Bhoopal Sagar, which is a religious place. At Kapasan the family of the husband owns their ancestral house. It is alleged in the petition that after about 15 days they went back to the matrimonial home and the family of the husband consisted of his parents, elder brother, his wife and children all living jointly in a small house which consists of one room and a varandah. It is further said in the petition that the husband used to live and sleep in the room which was occupied by his brothers family consisting of wife and children and the wife (respondent) was asked to sleep in the varandah with her in-laws and on being asked as to why she has been asked to sleep in the varandah the husband (appellant) started beating her. She was told that the marriage between them was only a ritual and the husband will live in his own style and she would not interfere in the same. She is said to be further threatened that in case she opens her voice about it he will kill her. When the wife complained about the behaviour of the husband he turned her out of the house and ever since then she is living with her parents. (3). In the reply filed by the husband, the allegations levelled against him were denied. When the wife complained about the behaviour of the husband he turned her out of the house and ever since then she is living with her parents. (3). In the reply filed by the husband, the allegations levelled against him were denied. It has been specifically said in the reply that it was totally wrong that the husband used to sleep in the room along with the family of his brother and the wife was asked to sleep in the varandah with her in-laws. The husband has further stated that the wife was continuously insisting upon him to live separately from the family of his parents and in view of his economic condition he could not do it and on the pretext of attending the wedding of a friend the wife abruptly left him and never returned thereafter. (4). It may also be noticed that the appellant husband filed a separate petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was consolidated with the divorce petition and both these matters have been decided together. The petition filed by the husband was dismissed in view of the decree of divorce having been granted in favour of the respondent wife. (5). In support of her petition, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined her mother Mst. Bashiran as P.W.2. This is the total evidence brought on record from the side of the wife. In her statement before the Court she has said that she lived with the husband for a total period of about three months and out of this period she had been taken by her in-laws and the husband to Kapasan, the ancestral house of the husband. She stated that the husband used to sleep with his brothers wife and she was asked to sleep with his parents in the varandah. On objection from her side he used to beat her and told her that the things would goon in the same manner and that she should keep quiet. She has also said that she did not leave the house of the husband of her own rather she was forced to leave it after beatings. (6). The wifes mother Mst. Bashiran has also stated that her daughter used to sleep in the varandah with her in-laws whereas the husband used to sleep in the room with his brothers wife. (7). (6). The wifes mother Mst. Bashiran has also stated that her daughter used to sleep in the varandah with her in-laws whereas the husband used to sleep in the room with his brothers wife. (7). The husband examined himself as NAW 1, Hasan Khan as NAW 2, who is father of the appellant husband, Mst. Huriyat Begum as NAW 3 who happens to be the neighbour of the husband and Azad Mohd., who happens to be a relation of the husband as stated by him brother of the sisters husband. This is the total evidence produced by the appellant husband. (8). The evidence examined from the side of the husband appellant is to the effect that she stayed at the husbands house for about 20 days only whereafter the husband hired a separate room for their residence but the wife refused to come back. It has also been said that the husband never gave any beatings to her and they used to sleep together in the open. The evidence led by the appellant husband is that he desires to live with the respondent wife and for that purpose a petition for restitution of conjugal rights has also been filed by him. (9). The learned Judge, Family Court, after examining the record, granted a decree of divorce to the respondent wife as prayed for by her and consequently dismissed the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. (10). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned judgement and decree could not have been granted to the respondent wife as per the material on the record. It is argued that there was joint family of the husband consisting of his aged father and mother, his elder brother, elder brothers wife and their children. The total accommodation was consisting of a room and a varandah. It was not thus possible under the circumstances to believe that the husband would be sleeping and sharing bed with his brothers wife and thus, the learned lower court committed an error in granting the decree of divorce. Learned counsel further proceeds to submit that there was variance between the pleadings and the proof inasmuch as in the petition for divorce the wife never stated that the husband used to sleep with his brothers wife rather it has been said that he used to sleep in the room along with his brothers family. Learned counsel further proceeds to submit that there was variance between the pleadings and the proof inasmuch as in the petition for divorce the wife never stated that the husband used to sleep with his brothers wife rather it has been said that he used to sleep in the room along with his brothers family. (11). It has also been urged that the husband though not economically sound to live separately from the family still hired a room as desired by the wife and was prepared to live with her as per her desires but she refused to come back. (12). Learned counsel appearing from the side of the respondent wife submits that under these circumstances there was no option for the wife to leave her matrimonial abode as the husband used to sleep with his brothers wife meaning thereby that they had extra marital relations with each other and on being questioned about the conduct the husband would start beating the wife. It is also said that it would not be possible to believe the version given by the husband that they used to sleep together in the open since these were the months of November and December. The wife was given a cruel treatment and as per her version there is danger to her life and therefore, she is entitled to the decree of divorce which has rightly been granted by the learned court below. (13). After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the record carefully each of the statements on the record from both the sides, we are of the opinion that the learned lower court committed an error in granting the decree of divorce to the wife. It has come on record that the day the wife came to the house of the in-laws after the wedding, there was a marriage in the family of the husbands elder brothers daughter. It would, thus, appear that the respondent wife would be almost of the same age as the brothers daughter of the husband though it has not specifically come on the record as to what are their ages but an inference can be drawn that the respondent wife would be around the age of the daughter of the husbands brother. It would, thus, appear that the respondent wife would be almost of the same age as the brothers daughter of the husband though it has not specifically come on the record as to what are their ages but an inference can be drawn that the respondent wife would be around the age of the daughter of the husbands brother. Further, it is rather difficult to believe and accept the version given by the wife that the husband used to share bed with his brothers wife. It is an admitted case that brother alongwith his wife and children were living in the room and in the joint family where there are aged parents it could just not be believed that the elder brother would permit his wife to share bed with the appellant husband when he himself lived in the same room along with the children This is something which does not prick our conscience. In case the respondent wife was seeking divorce on the ground of adulterous relations between her husband and husbands brothers wife then strong evidence was needed to be placed on record which in the present case is completely missing. We have before us the version of the wife as projected by her on record we are also not prepared to accept that the appellant husband used to give beatings to his wife. In case there was any such thing the matter should have been reported by her or by her parents to the police or in the neighbourhood or in the Panchayat i.e. Biradari. Small incidents have not to be noticed to dissolve marriages since these are normal incidents of a wedded life. The learned Judge, Family Court should have made an effort to find out the truth in the allegations by questioning the parties but incidentally this has not been done. Since in the Family Courts the lawyers are not permitted to appear, it, therefore, becomes imperative on the part of the Presiding Officer/Judge to find out the reasons as to where lies the fault and then sincere efforts should be made if the ties can be cemented. It will be quite useful to mention here that after hearing the arguments an effort was made by us for reconciliation and for that purpose the parties were directed to appear before us in Chamber. It will be quite useful to mention here that after hearing the arguments an effort was made by us for reconciliation and for that purpose the parties were directed to appear before us in Chamber. The parties appeared before us and we made efforts if the parties could reconcile. The husband is prepared to accept the wife and life with her on any condition this Court might like to impose under the circumstances. An offer was also made by him that he would hire out a separate accommodation and that he was prepared to accept her. We tried to persuade the wife to accept the offer of the husband and we also assured her that we shall see to it that no problems are created in the harmonious living of the couple and that the matter could be kept pending and she should join the husband and accept the offer for a trial and that the case would be adjourned to for a couple of months. The wife has refused to accept the offer. We cannot refrain ourselves from observing that we find the attitude of the wife stubborn and we could not find any reason for her having left the house of the husband. The reconciliation efforts, thus, failed. We also find from the impugned order that similar efforts had been made by the learned Judge during the proceedings and a mention of it has been made in para 8 of the impugned judgement and it has been observed that the efforts in that direction were fruitless. The instances of cruelty are totally missing in the present case. Cruelty as is too well known has to be of such a type so as to cause danger to life, limb or health or to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. This ofcourse is true that the cruelty also includes cruelty by conduct i.e. even when the conduct does not amount to physical treatment. (14). We have carefully gone through the statement of the wife. The allegation is of general type without any specific instances. It would not, therefore, be proper to put an end to the matrimonial life on such allegations only without any proof. Adultery is a serious matrimonial offence. The Courts, thus, require proof in this respect which is of quality. In the present case, the petition does not contain allegations to that effect. It would not, therefore, be proper to put an end to the matrimonial life on such allegations only without any proof. Adultery is a serious matrimonial offence. The Courts, thus, require proof in this respect which is of quality. In the present case, the petition does not contain allegations to that effect. Similarly, cruelty is not confined to physical violence only. Mental cruelty if caused to such an extent which would make the other spouse feel and that an impression is caused that it would be totally unsafe to live in such conditions which would also be injurious. We have noticed as said above that while persuading respondent-wife for reconciliation, she appears to be some what arrogant and temperamental in behaviour. Cruelty in order to be a ground for dissolution of marriage or divorce has to be of such a type which should satisfy the conscience of the Court and further the Courts should have reasons to believe that the relations between the parties have deteriorated to an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together. (15). Regarding extra marital relations of the husband with his elder brothers wife, we have already given our serious thought and that too is simply unbelievable. (16). Resultantly the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the lower court granting divorce is set aside. The divorce petition filed by the wife is ordered to be dismissed. No Costs.