JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. :- This is wifes appeal against the grant of decree of divorce dated 1.2.1996 passed in H.M.P. No.6/93 by District -Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts, at Mandi on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. On 29.3.1993, a petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the husband - respondent against the wife-appellant for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The husband alleged that he was married to the appellant on 5th October, 1974 according to Hindu rites, customs and ceremonies at Jogindernagar, District Mandi; where after they lived happily and peacefully for 13 years and from their wedlock two daughters namely Rachna Kaur (18 years), Srijna Kaur (17 years) and one son Vijender Preet Singh (10 years) were born who are having with their father. The allegation of the husband was mat since 1985 the behviour of the wife became abnormal and cruel towards him and he was bent upon to lower down his reputation by leveling false charges of adultery with other women. The wife left the house without his consent. When the husband requested his wife to mend her ways and behave like a wife, she did not accede to his request. He alleged that in the month of December, 1992, when he went to Jaipur, the wife in his absence got cut the hair of her son who is a Sikh boy. The other children objected to this act of the wife. When he came back he asked his wife about the cause of getting the hair of the son cut and on enquiry the wife threatened him with dire consequences and told that she did not like the Sikhs and hates them, therefore, she got the hair of her son cut This act injured the religious sentiments and feeling of the husband and he got humiliated and defamed in his community. On one occasion i.e. 22.3.1993 when the husband was ironing his clothes with the electric Press, the wife attacked him and attempted to burn his face with hot iron Press. On 23.3.1993, when the husband was away from Jus home, the wife removed the entire household articles from the house including the beddings and locked the living room. On one occasion i.e. 22.3.1993 when the husband was ironing his clothes with the electric Press, the wife attacked him and attempted to burn his face with hot iron Press. On 23.3.1993, when the husband was away from Jus home, the wife removed the entire household articles from the house including the beddings and locked the living room. His children were without bed and spent whole night outside in cold. The husband further alleged that the wife has ceased the matrimonial relations with him for the last two years prior to filing of the petition and thus, she neglected and deserted him without any reasonable cause, According to the husband all these acts caused mental and physical cruelty to him and on the basis of these grounds he sought the decree by way of divorce. 3. The petition was contested by the wife. She denied the entire allegations of the husband levelled by him in the petition. She alleged that she did not damage the sanctity of Sikh religion nor she tried to burn her husbands face at any point of time. It was also denied by her that she removed the utensils and beddings etc. from the house and locked the room. According to her version, the behaviour of the husband changed all of a sudden towards her. He used to pick up quarrel over trivial matters and also told her that no dowry was given by her parents. She alleged that she was beaten up many times by the husband and was removed forcibly from the house. It has been specifically alleged by the wife that on 7.2.1993 she found her husband having sexual act with his daughter Srijna Kaur. She was shocked and felt ashamed. When she requested the husband to mend his ways, he did not dis-continue with it. The husband used to retaliate and torture her with cruelty. She further alleged that she lodged a report in Police Station Jogindernagar against the husband and he had instituted two civil suits against her. According to the wife, the husband was bent upon to harass her and treated her with cruelty. She prayed that the husband-could not take the advantage of his own wrong deeds and misconduct which could justify the grant of relief to him as alleged in the petition. 4. According to the wife, the husband was bent upon to harass her and treated her with cruelty. She prayed that the husband-could not take the advantage of his own wrong deeds and misconduct which could justify the grant of relief to him as alleged in the petition. 4. In rejoinder the husband denied the allegations of the wife and re-asserted the allegations made in the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the followings issues. (1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged ? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for last two years as alleged ? OPP. (3) Relief. 6. The District Court on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the wife had made baseless allegations against the husband which act on her part was held an act of cruelty and she had deserted him for the last two years from the date of filing the petition without any reasonable cause thereby closing the marital ties. The petition of the husband was allowed by granting decree in his favour and dissolving the marriage by divorce. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. We may point out at the very outset that during the course of proceedings of the appeal on 22.6.1998 a suggestion was thrown to the parties to re-concile their difference but both the parries appeared to be adamentto acept our suggestion. Therefore, we were convinced that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken and no useful purpose was likely to be served with the continuance of such marriage. In this eventuality both the parties agreed that petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the husband may be converted into a petition under Section I3-B of the said Act. The parties were allowed time to file a joint petition under Section 13-B seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent and the case was adjourned to the following day. 8. On 23.6.1998 when the case was taken up, the husband adopted a very tough and rigid attitude and in that eventuality we proceeded to hear the appeal finally. 9. Mr. 8. On 23.6.1998 when the case was taken up, the husband adopted a very tough and rigid attitude and in that eventuality we proceeded to hear the appeal finally. 9. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the wife strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and the husband has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the wife. According to the learned counsel on the contrary the wife has proved on record that the behaviour of the husband towards his wife was very cruel and he used to pick up quarrel over trivial matters/The wife was given beatings by the husband and she was forcibly removed from his house. The husband has levelled shameful allegations against the wife and he was bent upon to harass her as she noticed that the husband had indulged in unlawful activities with his daughter and when the wife tried to pursuade him not to repeat the shameful act, he filed the petition for divorce on false allegations levelled against the wife. 10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the wife were opposed by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the husband. According to Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma, the conduct of the wife and the allegations of cruelty were proved by the husband by leading cogent and convincing evidence which was rightly accepted by the learned court below and the judgment and decree sought to be set aside is based upon sound reasonings. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, we find that there is no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the wife and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. The husband examined himself as PW -1 and produced Kashmir Singh PW -2, Lali Devi PW -3, Surjan PW -4, Srijan KaurPW-5 and Mangat Ram PW -6, to substantiate his allegations made in the petition. AS per the version of the husband he corroborated the stand taken by him in the petition. Further, he stated that out of about 800 square ft. of land he had gifted 700 sq. ft consisting of one shop and residential room to the wife and he was himself living in me rented premises along with his children. He stated that he never tortured the wife for the dowry as alleged by her. Further, he stated that out of about 800 square ft. of land he had gifted 700 sq. ft consisting of one shop and residential room to the wife and he was himself living in me rented premises along with his children. He stated that he never tortured the wife for the dowry as alleged by her. However, he admitted that de had lodged FIR under Section 498-A IPC against him and me Police investigated the case for about 7 months which caused lot of humiliation to him. He deposed that some of the persons with whom he was not pulling well, were regular visitors in the house of the wife and she had completedly broken the relation of husband and wife for the last three years. It was further stated by Mm that in the year 1988-89 the wife imputed the allegations of adultery against him with Narvada and thereafter with Lali Devi who was working in -his orchard. He stated that in May, 1993 the wife went on giving the cheap publicity that he had been keeping illicit relations with his daughters. According to him all these false and baseless allegations levelled by the wife had defamed him and in these circumstances, it is not possible for him to keep the marital ties alive. In the cross-examination, he stated that till 23.3.1993 they were living together in one house but they were sharing separate rooms & kitchens. He denied the suggestion that his son Virenderjeet Singh was the only Sikh in the class and other students had been teasing and calling him a terrorist He categorically denied the allegations of the wife that on 7.2.1993 she caught him red-handed committing sexual intercourse with his daughter PW Srijna Kaur. He admitted that he filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against his wife after divorce petition. He also admitted that S.D.M. had also tried to intervene in their dispute. It was also admitted by him that before the present petition was filed both of them had filed a petition for mutual divorce and as the wife did not agree, the same was dismissed. He stated that the wife had been visiting the office of S.D.M. Jogindemagar regularly where she used to sit for two hours continuously and he got suspicious about their illicit relations. 13. He stated that the wife had been visiting the office of S.D.M. Jogindemagar regularly where she used to sit for two hours continuously and he got suspicious about their illicit relations. 13. The next witness Shri Kashmir Singh, Barbar, stated that he had cut the hair of the son of PW Jaswant Singh Sodhi on the request of Smt. Prerena Jyoti Kaur. PW Smt. Lali Devi stated that Smt Prerena Jyoti Kaur had imputed raise allegations of her illicit relations with Jaswant Singh Sodhi and made a false complaint to her husband. According to her version during the Lohari festival celebrated last year Smt. Prerena Jyoti Kaur called her and swore by the name of deity that the former should do a favour to the latter as the wife wanted her husband to be jailed. According to her, Smt. Prerena Jyoti Kaur told her that she should tear her clothes and then start shouting by imputing allegations against Jaswant Singh Sodhi of outraging her modestly and upon hearing her cries she (appellant) would appear on the scene and thereafter a case would be lodged against her husband. She deposed mat she flatly refused to do this objectionable act. PW Surjan is the husband of Smt Lali Devi who had been working in the orchard of the husband alongwith his wife and one Asha. According to him, Smt Prerena Jyoti Kaur imputed false allegations of illicit relations interse his wife and Jaswant Singh Sodhi. He tried to verify the true facts from Asha Devi who told that it was a false allegation. He stated that his wife Smt. Lali Devi was also beaten by Smt Prerena Jyoti Kaur and her false allegation of illicit relations interse his wife and Jaswant Singh Sodhi caused humiliation to him as well. 14. PW Srijna Kaur is the daughter of die parties in dispute. She specifically denied any illicit relations with her father. She was subjected to long and lengthy cross-examination by the learned counsel for the wife but she denied all the allegations made by the wife against the husband. She also stated that her mother used to beat all the children and the allegations imputed by her mother vis-a-vis the witnesses and her father were of a grave nature which no mother on earth would have dared to do so. She also stated that her mother used to beat all the children and the allegations imputed by her mother vis-a-vis the witnesses and her father were of a grave nature which no mother on earth would have dared to do so. It has come in the evidence of PW Mangat Ram, a family friend that Smt Prerena Jyoti Kaur was in the habit of imputing false and baseless allegations of illicit relations of her husband with one Narvada and other. 15. On the other hand, wife appeared as RW -1 and stated that she was a member of the Notified Area Committee of Joginder Nagar and in this connection she used to visit the office of S.D.M. who was Chairman of the Committee. Her husband got suspicious about her character. It was admitted by her that till 23.2.1993 she remained with her husband as his wife and during this time the husband started saying that insufficient dowry was brought by her. She did not hesitate to state on oath that her daughter Srijna was having illicit relations with her father and she was mentally shocked to notice this facts. However, she stated that one Say her daughter Srijna was going to the orchard and when she was stopped the daughter slapped her and thereafter she reported the matter to the Police. She also stated that her son Vijenderjeet Singh was studying in 6th Class and his classmates used to torture him saying that he was a terrorist and he requested her that he would not like to keep long hair. It was her husband who told her that there was no harm in cutting the hair of their son because his father was Communist and brothers of her husband are clean shaven. She admitted in her cross-examination that about 8 years back a gift of one shop and house belonging to her husband was made in her favour by him. She also admitted that Kala Devi was permanently residing with her for the last 2-1/2 years. She deposed that she did not tell the illicit relations of her daughter with her husband to anyone with an idea that the future of the daughter may not be tarnished. She admitted the fact that her father -in-law was a Sikh and remained as such till he died and his last rites were performed in the Gurudwara. 16. She deposed that she did not tell the illicit relations of her daughter with her husband to anyone with an idea that the future of the daughter may not be tarnished. She admitted the fact that her father -in-law was a Sikh and remained as such till he died and his last rites were performed in the Gurudwara. 16. Som Singh (RW-2) is the brother of the wife and stated that Jas want Singh Sodhi used to impute allegations of adultery against his wife, he has categorically stated that both the daughters of the parties are having good moral character and nobody could impute any allegation against them. Kala Devi appeared as RW -3 and tried to support the version of the wife. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was married to Bansi Ram and during her wedlock she gave birth to four children and she left his house about 16 years back and thereafter started living with one Gudu Nepali and had been visiting the house of Smt Prerena Jyoti Kaur for-the last 13 years. She also stated that the son of the maternal uncle of Smt. Prerena Jyoti Kaur had been residing with her who belongs to Hamirpur and is working at Chandigarh. She deposed that both-the daughters of the parties are having good moral characters and nothing adverse was ever heard. 17. Sh. Himmat Ram Saini (RW-4) who was working as Assistant in the office of S.D.M. Sunder Nagar till 1981 stated that at that time Smt Prerena Jyoti Kaur was a member of the Notified Area Committee and she used to visit S.D.Ms office during the meetings. According to him Shri Jaswant Singh Sodhi never imputed any allegations against her character at that time but later on he got suspicious about her illicit relations with the then S.D.M. and he tried to make both the parties to understand the situation and live in harmony. 18. After re-appraisal of the entire evidence aforesaid, it can be said from die allegations levelled by the wife against the husband that her behaviour towards the husband cannot be considered to be of the nature which can be called normal in family life. 18. After re-appraisal of the entire evidence aforesaid, it can be said from die allegations levelled by the wife against the husband that her behaviour towards the husband cannot be considered to be of the nature which can be called normal in family life. The husband has given elaborate mention of the acts of cruelly meted to him from time to time and his version cannot be doubted in the face of the evidence of his daughter and the counter allegations of illicit relations of the husband with her. The incidents of living adulterous life by the husband levelled by the wife were nothing but a devise to align his reputation. In order to find out mental cruelty of the husband, the whole matrimonial relationship has to be taken into consideration. The word cruelty cannot be put a strait-jacket of judicial definition and physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to the constitution of mental peace of the husband. 19. In Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1534) the Supreme court held :- "...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." The learned Judge held further :- "It is not necessary, as under the English law that the cruelty must be of such u character as to cause danger to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly, danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension of it is a higher re requirement than a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with the other. But under Section 10(l)(b), harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty. But under Section 10(l)(b), harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty. Plainly, what we must determine is not whether the petitioner has proved the charge of cruelty having regard to the principles of English law, but whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has treated him with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent" 20. What is the mental cruelty that is required to be established by the parties has been answered by the Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs. ) (1994) I Supreme court Cases 337) in the following terms :- "While answering these questions, it must be kept in mind that the cruelty mentioned in clause (i-a) is a ground now for divorce as well as for judicial separation under Section 10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Act, every after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit dissolution of marriage on that ground. This circumstance may have to be kept in mind while ascertaining the type of cruelty contemplated by Section 13(1) (i-a). 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 die 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. 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." (Para 16) 21. In the present case the wife in a written statement attributed scandalous I allegations of adultery to die husband and the husband put forward another allegation against the wife that she was having undesirable association with the S .D .M. Whether the findings recorded by the District Judge are correct or not but what is certain is that once such allegations are made by the husband and wife against each other then it is obvious that the marriage of two cannot in any circumstances be continued any further. The marriage appears to be practically dead from cruelty alleged by the husband. The husband has proved on record mat the allegations made by the wife were proved to be false, defamatory, malacious and baseless and have caused mental agony to him. The demand of dowry has not been proved by the wife. She could have examined her parents to whom she is alleged to have made complaint about the demand of dowry. All the witnesses of the husband have proved that the wife had been making false allegations against the husband about his illicit relations with other women including PW Smt. Lali Devi who has categorically refuted these allegations. Similarly PW Srijna D/o the parties too have categorically denied her illicit relations with her father and the allegations of the conduct of the husband vis-a-vis a daughter are proved to be false, scandalous and baseless. It has come in the evidence of wifes witnesses that conduct and character of the daughters of the parties are good and nobody could impute any allegation against them. 22. It is also proved by the husband from the material on record that the wife had deserted him for the last two years from the date of filing the petition without any reasonable cause. She has sep- rated herself from the husband with the intention on her part of bringing co-habitation permanently to an end and such separation was without the consent of the husband. The husband has gifted 700 sq. ft. She has sep- rated herself from the husband with the intention on her part of bringing co-habitation permanently to an end and such separation was without the consent of the husband. The husband has gifted 700 sq. ft. land consisting of one shop and residential room to 4e wife where she is living and conducting he: business and he himself is living in the rented premises alongwith his three children. 23. For the offence of desertion, so far as deserting spouce is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring co-habitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned; (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. (see Bipinchandra Jaisingbai Shah v. Prabhavati (AIR1957S.C. 176.) From the evidence discussed above we are satisfied that the marriage is practically dead and the findings of un- becoming behaviour of the wife recorded by the District Judge are based upon sound appreciation of evidence which in our view call for no interference in this appeal. 24. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge dissolving the marriage between the parties bygranting a decree of divorce is upheld. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.