JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against judgment dated 3.12.1990 passed by learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 16 of 1990 whereby the learned Judge has reversed the decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant/husband by the learned Trial Court. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent wife is employed as Assistant Professor in Government Girls Degree College at Jabalpur and the appellant husband is an M.B.B.S. doctor practising as an Eye-Specialist at Jabalpur. The marriage took place on 6.12.1976 when the respondent wife was in service in Govt. School at Balaghat. A petition for divorce was filed by the husband on allegations that respondent wife did not at all discharge any marital obligations and has not returned to the husband since September, 1977. It was stated that after the marriage she lived with her husband at his house for a very brief period. In September, 1977, she created a scene by jumping in the mid-night. It was alleged that since the day the appellant husband married the respondent wife, she had been threatening the appellant that she would commit suicide. Therefore, the petition for divorce was brought by the appellant husband on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The petition was opposed by the wife stating that she never created any scene by jumping in the mid-night and there were no attempts on her part to commit suicide. She further stated in reply that in September, 1977, she had informed her husband from Balaghat that she was returning to Jabalpur and she should be received at the Railway-Station but the husband never turned up at the Railway Station, although he had received the intimation. According to the wife, a telegram was also sent to the husband about her returning from Balaghat to Jabalpur but the husband sent a letter through his aunt Smt. Kakkad to Shriram, the cousin of the wife informing that the appellant husband was highly displeased and in anger and it would not be possible for him to go to Railway Station to receive the wife and that the parents of the wife should make arrangements to receive her. It is alleged by the wife that she made repeated attempts herself and through her relations and friends to approach the husband so as to permit her to discharge her marital obligations as a wife in the house of the husband, but such approaches and attempts were strongly repelled by the husband and the members of his family. It was alleged that in the year 1977 on the festival of Karwa Chouth, parents of the wife went to the house of the husband with gifts and presents as a mark of pious relationship between husband and wife, but the husband and his family members refused to accept the same. The wife also stated that thereafter she had been writing letters to the husband from Balaghat and even expressed her wish to leave the service and live with the husband to lead a happy married life but the husband never responded. It was also alleged that during Dushehra-Diwali holidays of the year 1979, the wife tried to approach the husband and met him in the clinic of Dr. R.K. Mishra, Eye Specialist where her husband was working at that time, but the husband flatly refused to talk to her or to meet her and asked her to immediately leave. Thereafter she returned back in the car of Dr. Mishra whose wife escorted her back to her parents' house in Wright Town, Jabalpur. It was also alleged by the wife that her father died on 21.3.1980 and the death news was sent to her husband but he did not join the funeral or come for condolence. It was also pointed out by the wife that she tried to somehow reconcile through good offices of her neighbour, friends and relations but without any result. In these circumstances, the wife denied that there was any voluntary desertion on her part or any act of cruelty so as to pass a decree of divorce against her. 3. In support of his case, the husband examined himself as PW1 and alleged about desertion by his wife and alleged that in the mid-night, she tried to jump from terrace of the house of the husband and attempted to commit suicide. The husband also produced testimony of PW 2 Shankar Kumar Khatri who is said to be a next door neighbour to support his own testimony. The husband also produced testimony of PW 2 Shankar Kumar Khatri who is said to be a next door neighbour to support his own testimony. Wife also examined herself as DW 2 stating that she was willing to go with her husband but he was not prepared to keep her with him. She has narrated that she was serving in the School at Balaghat and was teacher in Music. She deposed that she asked her husband whether she should continue in service or leave it. But husband told her that she should continue. She has deposed that she was willing to discharge her marital responsibilities. She has also deposed that she had been visiting the family of the husband during Dushehra-Diwali and on other holidays. She has also deposed that she had given a telegram that she was reaching Jabalpur and arrangement for receiving her at Railway Station be made, but husband sent an intimation through his aunt that no such arrangement would be made. She has denied to have made any attempt in midnight to commit suicide. She has denied that any such incident had taken place. She has also deposed that through the agency of friends, attempts were made to reconcile but without any result. 4. Smt. Krishna Khanna has also been examined as DW 2. She is the sister-in-law of DW 1. DW 2 Smt. Krishna Khanna has deposed that on the occasion of Diwali and Kanua Chouth when she and her husband went to the house of husband appellant to give certain gifts, they were turned out. DW 3 Banke Bihari was also examined. He is the brother of wife respondent. He has also deposed about the treatment of husband that he was not willing to keep his sister with him. DW 4 Dwarka Prasad Khanna cousin of wife respondent also deposed that mother of husband appellant is his cousin sister. He has deposed that his wife told him to go and bring the defendant/respondent wife as the plaintiff/husband did not want to keep her. 5. On the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 14 issues and certain additional issues were also framed. After due trial, learned Trial Judge granted a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff husband on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty. 5. On the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 14 issues and certain additional issues were also framed. After due trial, learned Trial Judge granted a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff husband on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty. The wife preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court before this Court. Learned Single Judge after considering the matter and perusing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the allegation that the wife attempted to commit suicide is not believable. The learned Single Judge found that the husband had deliberately deserted his wife and that there was no desertion on the part of the wife. Learned Single Judge also recorded that on 20th September, 1990, both the parties appeared before him and on asking the husband to reconcile and take the wife with him to live together, the husband flatly declined and stated that now it was too late to live together. Learned Single Judge, after perusing the evidence on record and the law on the subject came to the conclusion that the evidence led by the plaintiff husband is not sufficient to constitute a ground for desertion or cruelty and hence, he reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge by judgment dated 3.12.1990. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the records. Mr. Kale, learned Counsel for the appellant husband submitted that he wants to press the ground of cruelty only. He submitted that the husband and wife have not lived together for a long time and that is sufficient to constitute a ground of mental cruelty on the husband. Learned Counsel submitted that the marriage has become irreconcilable at this distance of time and therefore, both the parties be allowed to live their own lives. We called both the parties before us and tried to persuade both of them to live together, but the appellant's stand was stiff that he was not willing to stay together and take his wife with him. The respondent wife stated before us that she is willing to go and stay with the appellant and is prepared to leave her job. The attitude of the husband was adamant and he categorically refused to take his wife with him. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. The respondent wife stated before us that she is willing to go and stay with the appellant and is prepared to leave her job. The attitude of the husband was adamant and he categorically refused to take his wife with him. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Kale's main emphasis was on the question as to in what case, cruelty could be construed. He submitted that it depends on the facts of each and every case. In the present case, he submitted, the wife has not lived with her husband successively for a long time and that constitutes cruelty and therefore, a decree of divorce has been granted by the Trial Court. It is true that it cannot be laid down as to what constitutes cruelty as it depends upon the facts of each case. The marriage took place on 6.12.1976 and the wife, as per her own statement, was always ready and willing to stay with her husband. Therefore, it cannot be said that the wife had deliberately deserted her husband. All attempts were made from time to time on her part to reconcile and she was ready and willing to go with her husband but the husband did not allow her to come and stay with him. So far as the desertion part is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly found it to have not been established. 8. Now, coming to the next question regarding mental cruelty, it may be stated in this connection that there is only one solitary instance which has been quoted that the wife tried to commit suicide. This has not been found to have been established by the learned Single Judge. This single instance that at late night, the wife attempted to commit suicide by jumping seems to be a fiction than reality. In order to establish that there was some mental cruelty on the husband, there should be some positive evidence which can lead to a reasonable inference of causing mental cruelty. Mental cruelty depends on case to case. In the present case, there is no evidence to support that this single incident which has not been found to be proved, constituted a mental cruelty. There is no evidence that the wife had nagged her husband and repeatedly attempted to commit suicide. Only a solitary incident has been stated to constitute mental cruelty. In the present case, there is no evidence to support that this single incident which has not been found to be proved, constituted a mental cruelty. There is no evidence that the wife had nagged her husband and repeatedly attempted to commit suicide. Only a solitary incident has been stated to constitute mental cruelty. This, in our opinion, has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Single Judge. The husband and wife have not been able to live together for 20 years does not constitute a ground for mental cruelty so as to grant a decree of divorce. It is not on account of any fault on the part of the wife that the marriage has reached to such a miserable state. Husband with adamant attitude is responsible for not reconciling the marriage. Therefore, the husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong and get a decree of divorce. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 9. We find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed.