JUDGMENT Smt. Vimla Jain, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-4-1995 passed in R.C.S. No. 221-A/90 by IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff, has filed present first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the marriage of appellant was solemnized with the respondent in the year 1975 and out of their wedlock, three children were born. Since the inception of their marriage, the respondent started misbehaving, abusing and ignoring him even infront of his friends and relatives. The respondent even did not care for the food of appellant and insulted him on many occasions at his shop. She used to visit the house of her parents, which is in Guna, without his prior permission or intimation to him. In the year 1990, without any reasonable cause, the respondent on her own along with her children left the home of the appellant and proceeded to Guna and on return to his home, she again repeated the same behaviour. The respondent also filed a complaint against the appellant under section 498A of Indian Penal Code, which is pending for consideration. The appellant submitted that the respondent behaved in cruel manner with him. Being dissatisfied with her, the appellant/husband has filed a suit under section 13 of the Act for seeking divorce against the respondent on the ground that both of them are living separately and there is no possibility of amicable settlement between them in future. 3. The respondent/wife in her written statement pleaded that the allegations made by the appellant/husband were absurd and insulting. She also submitted that she never treated the appellant/husband with cruelty. According to her, the husband was ill-treating and misbehaving with her and making absurd allegations against her. Insofar as question of desertion was concerned, she contended that she was not living separately on her own accord, but in fact, she was forced to live separately because the appellant/husband was not ready and willing to live with her due to his illicit relationship with other ladies. He did not like her and used to abuse and beat her and ultimately deserted her. 4. He did not like her and used to abuse and beat her and ultimately deserted her. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant/husband that the trial Court committed an error of law and fact in dismissing the divorce petition. 5. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. 6. For the sake of convenience, section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is extracted below :-- 13. Divorce. -- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party -- (i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. 7. Appellant/husband Anil Kumar Rathore in support of his case before the trial Court examined himself as P.W. 1 and Mohammad Sadar Khan (P.W. 2) who is a tutor of his children and Syed Rahmat Ali (P.W. 3) who is his neighbour. On the other hand, respondent/wife Shashi Rathore examined herself as D.W. 1 to prove her case. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20-4-1995, the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/husband on the grounds that the allegations of cruelty and desertion levelled by the appellant/husband in his petition could not be proved by him. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/husband has preferred the present appeal. 8. The appellant/husband submitted two grounds (i) cruelty, and (ii) desertion in his appeal. The appellant/husband stated before the trial Court that the respondent/wife was misbehaving, abusing and ignoring him. She also ill-treated him before his friends, colleagues and relatives. She had wilfully and without any reasonable cause left his company. 8. The appellant/husband submitted two grounds (i) cruelty, and (ii) desertion in his appeal. The appellant/husband stated before the trial Court that the respondent/wife was misbehaving, abusing and ignoring him. She also ill-treated him before his friends, colleagues and relatives. She had wilfully and without any reasonable cause left his company. He has further stated that she was insulting him at his shop. She had lodged a case against the appellant/ husband under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In this cross-examination, he stated that respondent (sic) This statement of the appellant does not appear to be reliable because a lady is not expected to abuse in such a manner. The appellant's witness Mohammad Sadar Khan (P.W. 2) and Syed Rahmat Ali (P.W. 3) stated about a quarrel between both of them. 9. The respondent/wife clearly stated before the trial Court that the appellant/husband was having illicit relationship with the ladies, namely, Raju, Poonam, Kavita and others and brought such ladies at his home. Due to such illicit relationship, the appellant/husband used to ill-treat her, used to beat her and failed to discharge his obligations as husband as well as father of the children. She also stated that without her consent, the appellant/husband got her first pregnancy terminated and attempted to get second pregnancy terminated. 10. The petition was filed by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Having regard to the evidence brought on record by both the parties, it has to be seen whether the appellant was put to cruelty at the hands of the respondent. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have specifically stated in their evidence the acts of the respondent which constituted the cruelty. They simply stated that the respondent abused the appellant. These aspects would not constitute cruelty. Cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. We would like to mention that the appellant did not examine any of his family members or relatives in support of his case. Further, the appellant did not specifically pleaded the acts which tantamount to cruelty, in his petition. 11. As regards the term "cruelty" the Apex Court observed in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. We would like to mention that the appellant did not examine any of his family members or relatives in support of his case. Further, the appellant did not specifically pleaded the acts which tantamount to cruelty, in his petition. 11. As regards the term "cruelty" the Apex Court observed in V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, II (1993) DMC 568 (SC): AIR 1994 SC 710 , as under :-- Mental cruelty in section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act 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. 12. We are of the view that there were general allegations of cruelty against the respondent/wife. Even if such allegations are accepted, these are in the nature of 'normal wear and tear' in matrimonial life of a couple which cannot fall within the field of clauses (i-a) and (i-b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act. 13. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant-husband failed to establish the cruelty alleged to have been meted out to him by respondent-wife by adducing substantial evidence. 14. 13. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant-husband failed to establish the cruelty alleged to have been meted out to him by respondent-wife by adducing substantial evidence. 14. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20-4-1995 passed in R.C.S. No. 221 -A/90 by the learned Additional Judge in dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own costs as well as that of the respondent.