JUDGMENT J.S. Narang, J. - The marriage between the spouses was solemnised on 10.7.1977 according to Sikh marriage rites and that the Anand Karaj ceremony was also duly performed. The marriage was duly consummated at the place of residence. A son was born from this wedlock on 22.10.1978 and thereafter another son was born on April 28, 1985. 2. It is in 1995, a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had been filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage by way of obtainment of decree of divorce. It has been alleged that the behaviour of the wife towards the petitioner had been insulting, humiliating and contemptuous from the very beginning. However, to maintain peace and harmony and to save the honour of the family from the social disgrace, the husband continued to swallow such insinuations. It is further alleged that the wife fell into the syndrome of comparison of two houses i.e. house of her family and the house of her husband, resultantly, she tried to sit in judgment upon the standards of two houses. 3. It was expected, being the younger daughter-in-law of the family, that appropriate respect and regard should be shown to the elder daughter-in-law of the family but no such respect and regard was shown but she continued to behave in an ordinary manner which was rather felt disrespectful. The results were far too obvious i.e. the relatives of the family of the husband stopped visiting the petitioner one by one. It became almost impossible for the husband to maintain and sustain relations with the elders and youngers of his family. 4. The husband is an Electrical Engineer by occupation and had joined service in Merchant Navy. Being in Merchant Navy, he is to function on contract basis, and therefore, was expected to remain on sea for about 8 to 9 months in 12 months. On various occasions whenever it was permissible, the husband had been taking out children and his wife on vacations on the ship. It was expected that at least she would be behaving in a normal manner on the ship where the husband was also accompanied by other colleagues/crew members. However, her behaviour was not respectful rather of the husband was ridiculed on various occasions in front of his collegues. It was expected that at least she would be behaving in a normal manner on the ship where the husband was also accompanied by other colleagues/crew members. However, her behaviour was not respectful rather of the husband was ridiculed on various occasions in front of his collegues. The language which was used, was too derogatory and on one such occasion on the ship, the husband was accompanied by his brother Iqbal Singh who happened to be the Chief Engineer. It became almost difficult for him to take his family on ship, being always under a fear that she might create a scene which may not be digestible by the husband as the effect thereof could be insulting. However, whenever she was left alone with the children, he always sent sufficient money so that children and she herself could live comfortably. 5. Narration of an incident has been made and it is stated that it was in February 1993 the wife gave a phone call to the head office of the company wherein the husband was working which is situated at Hong Kong. The message was sent that there is some problem at home and that the husband should rush back immediately but the problem was not disclosed. The husband presumed that the matter is urgent and, therefore, it is necessary for him to reach back home, rescinded the contract and lost two months salary and other benefits and proceeded to reach home. The husband called up the father of the wife and requested him to reach Mohali so that the problems which have cropped up may be sorted out. Since the behaviour of the wife had not been very congenial, it was considered appropriate by the husband and he took along with him his two brothers namely Madan Pal Singh and Tarlochan Singh. All three of them reached home at around 7 to 8 p.m. and when the door was opened, on seeing all of them, she started shouting "BACHAO BACHAO MAINU MARAN AAGAYA". All of them were non-plused as to why this scene has been created. On hearing shoutings the neighbours also came along and that father of the wife was already sitting in the house. 6. The effort was made to sort out every matter which had arisen on account of matrimonial alliance. All of them were non-plused as to why this scene has been created. On hearing shoutings the neighbours also came along and that father of the wife was already sitting in the house. 6. The effort was made to sort out every matter which had arisen on account of matrimonial alliance. The husband disclosed to the father of the wife that once while calling him up, the wife had used abusive language, which occurred in September 1992 and various other matters and incidents which had occurred had also been disclosed to the father of the wife. Instead of sorting out the matters, the father of the wife stated that if the matter cannot be resolved as per his wish or his daughter, it will be taken to the courts and the final outcome thereof shall decide the fate of the marriage. The husband stayed in the house for about two days and made another attempt to reconciliate but the things were too hard and too difficult. The wife refused to allow the husband to sleep with her saying that first he should undergo AIDS test before he could have sexual intercourse with her. She also become delirious for the unknown reason and made an attempt to destroy his service papers such as passport etc. but the same were retrieved by the husband before they could be destroyed. 7. The matter was discussed by the husband with his elder brother Hardev Singh and narrated his tale of woes and that on account of fear psychosis the husband did not go back to his own house where his wife is staying. However, to the utter surprise of the husband, a police Inspector visited the house of the brother of the husband and enquired about his whereabouts in connection with a complaint which was lodged by the wife. The husband sought audience with SSP, Chandigarh and the entire matter was disclosed to him, resultantly, it was suggested that the matter should be sorted out between the husband and the wife. 8. The husband sought audience with SSP, Chandigarh and the entire matter was disclosed to him, resultantly, it was suggested that the matter should be sorted out between the husband and the wife. 8. A meeting of the relatives of both the spouses was arranged in the month of March 1993 wherein all the elders and relatives of both the spouses participated and that the consensus was arrived at that they should try to live as husband and wife and for the best interest of the children and that the matters should always be resolved by themselves before being taken out to the street. The wife demanded money whatever had been saved by him while being in service. The husband stated that whatever he could save is lying in the Bank and he would like to handle financial matters of the house himself. This irritated the wife and she started calling names of the husband and threatened him to leave the house or she would commit suicide and shall name him to be responsible for the same so that he can be implicated in a police case. The husband found no other alternative but to leave the house and spent the night at the house of his uncle at Mohali. 9. It is also alleged that the religious feelings of the husband were also hurt as the wife instigated and encouraged their son to cut his hair in the year 1990 when the petitioner had gone abroad in service. It is also alleged that the savings which were made by him to the extent of about Rs. 10 lacs were given to the wife which are under her control and that the house which was built by him in 500 sq.yards is also under the control of the wife. So far as jewellery is concerned, which was given at the time of marriage, is also under her control and that the house has been duly furnished by the husband by bringing imported stuff whichever were permissible for him to be brought and also bought from the local market. However, despite the portion of the house being rented out and the rentals being received by the wife, she proceeded to file a petition for maintenance in the Court. However, despite the portion of the house being rented out and the rentals being received by the wife, she proceeded to file a petition for maintenance in the Court. As per directions of the Court, on May 23, 1994, the husband went to his house to stay together with his wife upto May 28, 1994. Despite the husband having come to the matrimonial home, he was denied sexual relations, and was meted out the insults and misbehaviour and also instigated the eldest son, who was about 16 years of the age, to physically assault the husband. Sensing the overall situation, the husband left the house and since then he has been living outside the house despite the fact that the house was made by him and all the articles were bought by him from time to time. Since the situation had come to such an impasse that he could not re-enter his house and resultantly filed a petition for seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. 10. On the other hand, the wife has controverted the allegations contained in the petition by way of written statement. However, it has been admitted that the husband stayed with the wife on account of compromise arrived at in the suit for maintenance pending before Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Kharar. Statements of the parties were recorded and that the parties stayed together for five days. It has been emphatically denied that she had ever filed any complaint regarding the conduct of the husband. Since the husband had himself accepted the reconciliation and resultantly the grievance made by him stood condoned. In fact, she had levelled allegations against the husband in respect of the acts of cruelty committed towards her and the children. It has been alleged that he used to thrash her after taking liquor and that he neglected the two sons who had to approach the Court for seeking maintenance and that the husband also failed in his responsibility towards her as well children. It has been further alleged that the husband deserted his family in February 1993 and thereafter filed a petition in the year 1995 after a gap of about three years. However, the factum of marriage and birth of children has been admitted by the wife. It has been further alleged that the husband deserted his family in February 1993 and thereafter filed a petition in the year 1995 after a gap of about three years. However, the factum of marriage and birth of children has been admitted by the wife. It is stated that after the marriage both the spouses stayed with the joint family of the husband for about five years. It is alleged that no untoward incident ever took place nor any allegation of cruelty was even mentioned and that to the contrary sarcastic remarks were thrown upon the wife for bringing insufficient dowry and that the status of the family of the wife was also ridiculed. It was on the asking of the husband that the wife along with children shifted to a rented accommodation in Sector-38, Chandigarh in the year 1982 where she remained upto 1985 as the said accommodation was near to the accommodation of the elder brother of the husband. 11. However, it is from 1985 to 1987, the wife along with her children stayed at Amritsar and thereafter shifted to Mohali. The allegations of misbehaviour on the part of the wife with the father of the husband and so also the other members of the family have been emphatically denied. It has been admitted that the husband remained on voyage, being in service, for 8 to 11 months every year. She has admitted that she along with children was taken on board on three occasions but the visits were of short duration. She has emphatically denied the misbehaviour on her part while on board. She has also stated that her husband was always welcomed at home but whenever he was at home, he always gave beating after having consumed liquor. One such act was committed in Oct/November 1990, whereafter she had been treated at Chawla Nursing Home and again on second occasion in January, 1991, she was treated at Anand Nursing Home. Despite having been physically hurt she did not raise any hue and cry in the best interest of the family. She has categorically denied that she had ever made a call to the head office of the company where the husband was working and she has also emphatically denied having abused the husband on any occasion. Despite having been physically hurt she did not raise any hue and cry in the best interest of the family. She has categorically denied that she had ever made a call to the head office of the company where the husband was working and she has also emphatically denied having abused the husband on any occasion. It is stated that in fact she had called up in 1992 to enquire about his health because before leaving the house for the voyage he had suffered pain in his back, which was treated in PGI at Chandigarh. She has admitted that she had sent a telex message to her husband through his employer, as she was in need of money for the treatment of their younger son in October 1992. She had written some letters also to her husband but no reply was received. It is also alleged that after the expiry of the contract in February, 1993 the husband came and had stayed in India upto April 28, 1993 and that during this period he came to the house only for two days. It is further alleged that she had never ever refused to cohabit with the petitioner. It is alleged that the husband had always threatened to alienate the house and disinherit the wife and so also the children. It is at that time the husband sent two telegrams cancelling the power of attorney executed in her favour and disclosing the factum that the respondent and children are disinherited. It was also disclosed that by way of will the property is being bequeathed to his brother and his father. The telegram was sent through one Advocate at Ambala Shri V.K. Jain. The allegation of an effort to destroy the service papers and passport etc. has been emphatically denied. So far as reconciliation proceedings are concerned the same have been admitted. It is alleged that upon reconciliation both the spouses had dinner and had cohabited also. It has been emphatically denied that the wife had ever asked for the account or money from the petitioner. It is alleged that the husband left the matrimonial home without any reason. She has also stated that she had nothing to do with the cutting of hair of their elder son. The bank operation had been rescinded which was operable by the wife. It is alleged that the husband left the matrimonial home without any reason. She has also stated that she had nothing to do with the cutting of hair of their elder son. The bank operation had been rescinded which was operable by the wife. It is also alleged that the husband made an effort to alienate the matrimonial home but in view of the restraint order from the civil Court, no alienation could be made. So far as jewellery is concerned the same has been claimed to be Istridhan. It has been alleged that the furniture in the house was given to her by her parents. So far as Maruti car is concerned, the same has been purchased by her out of her own income as she has admitted that she had made some investments in UTI amounting to Rs. 40,000/- out of which units worth Rs. 35,000/- have been sold for meeting out litigation expenses. It is further alleged that in fact she was forced to join service as Personnel-cum-E.D.P. Assistant and that she drew Rs. 2500/- per month as salary. It has been admitted that the respondent came to the house under the orders of the Court and stayed upto May 28, 1995. It has been alleged that on the night of 27.5.1994 the petitioner under the influence of liquor gave her severe beatings but upon intervention of the son she was rescued. 12. The averments contained in the written statement have been controverted by way of replication and the averments contained in the petition have been reiterated. Upon the pleadings of the parties, an issue has been framed : whether the husband treated the wife with cruelty after the solemnisation of marriage ? 13. The husband appeared as his own witness as AW1 and three more witnesses have been examined i.e. Surjit Singh AW2, Tarlochan Singh AW3 and Pritpal singh Sodhi AW4. The wife appeared as her own witness as RW3 and has examined two more witnesses namely Shri Narinder Kumar Singla of Punjab National Bank as RW1 and A.K. Gupta of Indian Oversees Bank as RW2. 14. The husband while appearing as his own witness corroborated the averments contained in the petition. He had been subjected to cross examination but more or less the answers given are in conformity with the pleadings and the statement made in examination-in-chief. 14. The husband while appearing as his own witness corroborated the averments contained in the petition. He had been subjected to cross examination but more or less the answers given are in conformity with the pleadings and the statement made in examination-in-chief. Surjit Singh AW2 who was posted as District and Sessions Judge at Nahan in February/March 1993, has also deposed as AW2. He has admitted that he is the first cousin of the husband. He has further admitted that he had participated in the meeting for bringing around reconciliation between the husband and wife. However, not many allegations have been corroborated but it has been pleaded that it was heard by him. He has stated that as a matter of fact at the time of reconciliation the consensus drawn was that the parents of the wife would withdraw from the matrimonial home of the spouses and so also the relatives of the husband and that none of them would stay with them. Consequently, both the husband and wife were left in the house for the night and the persons who had participated in the reconciliation proceedings left the house at about 11 p.m. It is stated that it was at about 1 a.m. in the same night the husband came to his house and stated that he has been turned out of the house. He has been subjected to cross examination but nothing has been elicited. Tarlochan Singh has appeared as AW3 who has admitted that he is the brother of the husband and in his examination-in-chief he has corroborated the same facts and he has stated that the wife did insult her husband and that she had abused her husband by calling him a bastard and also the father of the husband a bastard. In his cross-examination he has not been able to tell the names of the persons who had collected from the neighbourhood. He has admitted that police never came at the spot. He has admitted that the wife was residing in a separate matrimonial home and there was no interference from each others family. So far as the allegations of calling the husband a bastard and so also his father have not been confronted in cross-examination. Pritpal Singh Sodhi has appeared as AW4. He has admitted that the wife was residing in a separate matrimonial home and there was no interference from each others family. So far as the allegations of calling the husband a bastard and so also his father have not been confronted in cross-examination. Pritpal Singh Sodhi has appeared as AW4. He has not stated much and consequently nothing has been elicited in the cross examination except for the fact that some telex message had been sent by the witness and that the wife had come to him for sending a telex message. 15. On the other hand wife has appeared as her own witness as RW3 and she has alleged that the insinuations regarding the insufficient dowry had been made. The averments contained in the written statement have been corroborated. It has been alleged that she had been given beating and that she was given a kick in her womb with a pointed black shoe which the husband was wearing and it was in the year 1990 the incident took place. She has produced the prescription Ex. R14 relating to the treatment of those injuries. For the other treatments she had received, the prescription slips have been exhibited as Exs. P15 to P19. In her cross-examination she has admitted that she does not have any idea that her husband lives in one room whenever he comes and again stated that he is living outside. The excerpt reads as under :- "......I do not have any idea as to whether my husband lives in one room in the kothi whenever he comes again said he is living outside. We have heard that he has purchased a plot in sector-55........." 16. She has also admitted that her husband used to send money till 1992 though the money was not sent regularly and that the money was received mostly through bank. She has also admitted that sometimes the money was sent while he was on duty. She has emphatically denied that she even withdrew Rs. 15 lacs from the account in the months of October, November, 1992. She has admitted that a telex message was sent to the employer of the husband as she needed money at the time of operation of the youngest son and that the money was sent in two instalments i.e. Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-. 15 lacs from the account in the months of October, November, 1992. She has admitted that a telex message was sent to the employer of the husband as she needed money at the time of operation of the youngest son and that the money was sent in two instalments i.e. Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-. However, she has admitted that in 1989 to 1992, she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the account. The entries of withdrawal in the year 1992 to the extent of Rs. 14,000/-, Rs. 27,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 69,600/- have been shown but it has been denied that they were withdrawn by her but it has been alleged that the said withdrawals were made by the brother of the husband. She has admitted the reconciliation meeting by the relations of both sides including Surjit Singh, who was posted as District and Sessions Judge, Nahan. She has denied that her husband was left in the house and that she had ever asked him for money or that she had turned him out at night. She has admitted that for that night they stayed as husband and wife and that it was at 4 p.m. in the morning that he told his wife that he had been left in the house against his wishes and thereafter he had left the house. The answers which have been given in the cross examination which need to be noticed read as under :- ".......It is incorrect that in the said gathering petitioner was left in Phase-5 Mohali and I was asked to keep him well. After that all the other relations went away. It is incorrect that I asked the petitioner to give his entire money and thereafter on his refusal I turned him out at night. On that night we stayed as husband and wife. Petitioner had the dinner but in the morning at 4.00 a.m. he told me that he had been left here against his wishes. Volunteered then he left for his uncles house at Mohali. It is incorrect that he left at 11.00 P.M. and went to the house of Surjit Singh PW..........". 17. It is alleged that in fact the husband told her that he is married to some other woman and is having children and he wants divorce. Volunteered then he left for his uncles house at Mohali. It is incorrect that he left at 11.00 P.M. and went to the house of Surjit Singh PW..........". 17. It is alleged that in fact the husband told her that he is married to some other woman and is having children and he wants divorce. It has also been stated that the friends of her husband have affirmed the allegations of the marriage of the petitioner with some other woman but there is no other evidence to corroborate this fact. She has not been able to disclose the name of such friend who gave her the aforesaid information. She had admitted that she had called up the head office of the company where her husband was working but that was only to find out the well being of her husband and that she had never asked her husband to rush back immediately. She has admitted that her husband stayed in the house for two days. She denied categorically that she had ever asked her husband to subject himself for AIDS test before he would be allowed the matrimonial obligations. She has admitted that she has sold the shares held by her in Unit Trust of India and it has been stated that the same were required for maintaining herself and her two sons. She had admitted that she was getting rent for the annexe of the kothi at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. The sarcastic remarks as alleged have been admitted and it is stated that the remarks are still being made till today. She has admitted that the relations of the husband did not demand dowry directly but they used to compare the dowry which was received in the house of his relations. However, it has been stated that the demand of dowry started after the second year of the marriage. The cumulative effect of answers given by the wife in the cross examination are more or less to the effect that she had been maltreated. Apart from her, two witnesses have appeared, one from Indian Oversees Bank and the other from Punjab National Bank and they have only produced the statement of Accounts of the husband which was maintained by him, resultantly they were not subjected to cross examination. Apart from her, two witnesses have appeared, one from Indian Oversees Bank and the other from Punjab National Bank and they have only produced the statement of Accounts of the husband which was maintained by him, resultantly they were not subjected to cross examination. Thus, to controvert the allegations and to substantiate her statements, only she has appeared as her own witness. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent-appellant has argued that in fact no cruelty can be said to have been suffered by the petitioner-respondent as no circumstances or any incident has been spelt out which can be said to have been corroborated by circumstantial or direct evidence. The petitioner- respondent has not been able to establish on records as to what act attributed to the wife could culminate into mental cruelty. In fact no case of physical cruelty has been spelt out or made out. It is not the case of the petitioner-respondent that the cumulative effect of the alleged allegations if presumed to be correct, would make out a case of mental cruelty to the effect that it is impossible for the husband to live with these on ones mind in the company of his wife. No case of mental cruelty can be said to be made out. The trial Court, therefore, erred in allowing the petition and annulling the marriage solemnised between the parties. 19. It has been further argued that the respondent-appellant had never ever made any complaint in respect of acts of omissions and commissions committed by the husband to any quarters against the husband which did culminate into mental cruelty, rather to the contrary the respondent-appellant swallowed everything for saving the marriage and resultantly for and in the best interest of the two children born from this wedlock. It was in fact in 1985 the petitioner-respondent (husband) withdrew the power of attorney which had been given in her favour to operate the bank account but despite this act, the wife did not put in any complaint before any person. The marriage was solemnised in the year 1977 and a son was born in 1978 and that a second son was born in the year 1985. This, in itself shows that the respondent- appellant has been looking after the house as a dutiful wife and a conscious mother and that apart from this she has always been cooperating so far as matrimonial obligations are concerned. This, in itself shows that the respondent- appellant has been looking after the house as a dutiful wife and a conscious mother and that apart from this she has always been cooperating so far as matrimonial obligations are concerned. It can never be assumed that she had ever denied sexual intercourse to the husband. The cumulative effect that first child was born in 1978 and the second child was born in 1985 goes a long way to show so far as compatibility of sexual relations between the spouses are concerned. In fact, the husband has tried to create superficial and hollow circumstances and absolutely incorrect incidents have been spelt out which are nothing but to prove binomial theorem i.e. obtainment of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage. It looks that the husband became sick and tried of the same woman and in fact is looking for another woman. Admittedly, the husband had joined service in Merchant Navy and has been travelling far and wide. There is no direct allegation but the approach and the general behaviour of the person who remains on sea for months and months together is far too obvious in this regard. It is admitted case between the parties that the husband remained on sea for about 8 to 9 months in 12 months and, therefore, possibility of extra marital affairs of the husband cannot be ruled out. De hors of this, the wife had not put in any complaint as she did not have any positive evidence in this regard. Though, it has been stated by her that she had heard that her husband is maintaining another wife and a family overseas but she does not have categoric information in this regard. Resultantly, she did not ask for divorce nor filed any such petition. The cumulative reading of the petition does not make out a case that she had ever denied physical relations to the husband for all these years. Both are healthy human beings and have always met with each others desires and needs. 20. Resultantly, she did not ask for divorce nor filed any such petition. The cumulative reading of the petition does not make out a case that she had ever denied physical relations to the husband for all these years. Both are healthy human beings and have always met with each others desires and needs. 20. It has been further argued that the words which have been put in her mouth "BACHAO BACHAO MAINU MARAN AAGAYE", is nothing but a figment of the husband as he has not been able to name even a single person in the neighbourhood, who had allegedly come at that time as no one has been brought before the Court to appear as a witness in this regard. Thus, such allegation deserves to be dismissed as the same has no weight worth the paper. It is alleged that it was in the year 1992 the wife had used abusive language and it is in 1992, it has been put into the mouth of the wife that she had asked the husband to undergo a test for AIDS. It is strange that after acquiring requisite qualification the husband had joined Merchant Navy way back and got married in 1977 and till 1992 i.e. for 15 years the wife had never asked her husband to undergo test for AIDS and suddenly she would ask him to undergo the test in the year 1992. The allegation that an effort to destroy passport and other papers had been made by the wife, is devoid of any merit as no corroborative evidence has been brought on record. It is not understandable as to why a wife would start behaving in such a manner when she has lived all along with the husband for 15 years and that prior to 1992, no such allegation has been spelt out or made out by the husband when he stepped into the witness box as his own witness. 21. It is further argued that so far as the allegation that the wife had called him a bastard and the father of the husband was also called a bastard, has not been corroborated by any one. 21. It is further argued that so far as the allegation that the wife had called him a bastard and the father of the husband was also called a bastard, has not been corroborated by any one. The husband has tried to prove this act on the part of the wife by stating that he was accompanied by his brother, if that be so, it is father of the husband not the father of the brother, who accompanied him, could he or would he accept these kind of words from the sister-in-law, such kind of words if are not used for 15 years, can they be said to be used by the wife at such later stage of the marriage especially when she lived in the joint family in the first instance for about five years and that not even a single complaint is stated to have been made by any member of the family. Moreso, her averment that she had been given a kick in her womb with shoe by the husband and that she had to undergo medical treatment in respect thereof and that she has not been given any suggestion that perhaps such kind of injury has been suffered by her on account of fall or otherwise, goes a long way to disclose the conduct of the husband. It has been emphatically denied that the respondent-appellant made any comparison of the two families and that she levelled any kind of allegations of shouting and humiliating language used by him and the other members of the family. She had never ever tried to sit in judgment upon the standard of the two houses i.e. her matrimonial home and the house of her parents. In fact she came to the house of the family of her husband and adopted the same as her matrimonial home. In fact she has been living in the joint family and had amicable relations with the family during the absence of her husband whenever he went on duty overseas. 22. It has been argued that the respondent-petitioner has been sending her money for looking after the children but sometimes she had to manage on her own as the money was sent in accordance with the whims and fancies of her husband. 22. It has been argued that the respondent-petitioner has been sending her money for looking after the children but sometimes she had to manage on her own as the money was sent in accordance with the whims and fancies of her husband. So far as withdrawal of some money from the account is concerned, the same has been admitted but the allegation that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the account has been emphatically denied. However, it has been admitted by her that the husband was trying to create ruckus with an effort to get out of the wedlock, the hypothetical circumstances and situations were created without any basis, which do not inspire confidence to come to an extreme conclusion of annulling the marriage. 23. It has been further argued that in fact the husband is trying to get out of this wedlock with the sole objective to go back to the family which has been created by him overseas, however, this fact has not been established for want of cogent piece of evidence. The pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the husband, no case can be said to be made out that the husband had ever suffered mental cruelty at the hands of the wife. If she has asked for money at a given point of time, it was only for the welfare of the children born from this wedlock. It is a matter of common knowledge that when children grow up their needs also grow and for catering to the needs of the children the finances are required. Since the husband was earning very well he could afford to cater to the needs of the children. The money was asked for or was withdrawn in reasonable measures so that children could be looked after. In fact, she herself had to take up a job for meeting out the emergencies and the exigencies where the husband may not be able to give sufficient money for the upkeep of the children and so also the upkeep of the wife. 24. It has been further argued that the trial Court has not even discussed the aspect of mental cruelty in the true and correct perspective by taking into consideration the evidence which has been brought on record and the allegations which have been made in the petition. 24. It has been further argued that the trial Court has not even discussed the aspect of mental cruelty in the true and correct perspective by taking into consideration the evidence which has been brought on record and the allegations which have been made in the petition. The only thing which has weighed with the trial court is that despite an effort having been made for reconciliation the parties have refused to live together, the fact of the matter is that the respondent-appellant had never ever refused to live together with the husband. It is a matter of fact that the house built at Mohali, where the family is residing is in the name of the husband and that in fact he made an effort to alienate this property and ultimately sell off the same so that wife and children are brought on road. Unfortunately, the husband could not succeed in this endeavour and that the said property is still in possession of the wife and the children and that some portion of the said property has been rented out for substantiating the income of the wife for the purpose of looking after the family. The petition is nothing but a framed up and made up petition with the objective to get rid off the wife and the children. 25. It is further argued that it is the settled law that a decree of divorce cannot be granted on hypothetical grounds alleged to have culminated into cruelty. Such insinuations as alleged and even if admitted would not make the life uncomfortable for the husband while living with the wife. The husband must examine his own conduct and should not act as lord and master but he is expected to respect and accept the interest of the wife as well when the wife becomes the mother of the children of the husband. Of course, physical relations are necessarily required amongst two healthy persons but for sexual intercourse the mental make up is essentially required. The marriage, where the unpalatable circumstances are created by the husband, the physical relationship may not be possible as the initiative on the side of the husband may be missing, in such a situation the wife cannot be subjected to the allegation that she did not cooperate for the physical relations. The marriage, where the unpalatable circumstances are created by the husband, the physical relationship may not be possible as the initiative on the side of the husband may be missing, in such a situation the wife cannot be subjected to the allegation that she did not cooperate for the physical relations. It has also been argued that the reliance which has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 706, is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The persual of the facts of this case show that the wife had never ever denied the physical relations, it is the husband who used to come back home after a gap of 7 to 8 months and that it is not the allegation that the wife used to go to her parental home whenever the husband came back from seas. Reference has also been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sham Lal v. Smt. Kanta Devi, 1995(3) RCR(Civil) 267 (P&H) in which it has been held that the existence of state of mind for sexual intercourse is very material. If the atmosphere is otherwise, sex has no meaning. However, without sex the life may be inconceivable but sex is not the be-all and end-all, however, in the case at hand the husband had never made any complaint in this regard since the date of the marriage i.e. 1977 upto 1992 and that suddenly in 1992, such allegation is being made, which has no substance. 26. Reference has also been placed upon a judgment of this Court rendered in re : Ram Chander v. Anguri Devi, (2001-2) PLR 823: cruelty alleged after 18 years would not be acceptable. The alleged cruelty was not a source of nuisance to the husband, such allegations cannot be accepted to be so grave that suddenly after such long gap it has become impossible for the husband to live with the wife. 27. In the case at hand, no allegations of cruelty have been alleged right upto 1992 but it is only on one day in 1992-93, it dawned upon the husband that the wife has conducted herself in a manner which has caused mental cruelty to him. 27. In the case at hand, no allegations of cruelty have been alleged right upto 1992 but it is only on one day in 1992-93, it dawned upon the husband that the wife has conducted herself in a manner which has caused mental cruelty to him. Reference has been made to a judgment of the apex Court in re : V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994)1 Supreme Court Cases 337. In the aforesaid judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically observed that the mental cruelty must be of such a nature that parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together and that it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case. Insinuations and the behaviour of the parties have always to be examined and seen in the context in which they have been made and the other person has acted and reacted. The Apex Court has categorically observed that mental cruelty as has been used in the provisions of the Act can broadly be defined as the conduct, which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible for that party to live with the other. The unusual step can be resorted to only to clear up an insoluble mess, when it is found that it shall be in the interest of both the parties. The allegations which are allegedly made without corroborative evidence, it is too dangerous to place reliance upon the same and annul the marriage solemnised between the husband and wife. It is not the case of a broken marriage and that the wife has always been ready and willing to live with the husband. 28. Reference has also been made to a judgment of the apex Court in re : Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) Supreme Court Cases 105. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that the word cruelty has not been defined under the Act but it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances which are spelt out in each case and would also be discernible from the respective conducts of the parties. 29. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the husband has suffered mental cruelty at the hands of the wife. 29. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the husband has suffered mental cruelty at the hands of the wife. It is evident that the husband continued to swallow the allegations, the insinuations made against the members of the family and also calling the husband bastard and so also his father a bastard, was not brought to the street only with the intention to give time to the wife to settle down in the matrimonial home and to also settle down with the other members of the family. However, this could not happen. It is evident from the evidence brought on record that she craved for living independently in an independent house and away from the family of the husband. It is the admitted case, in the first instance she lived in a rented house in Chandigarh and thereafter when the house was built by the husband, she occupied the same long with children. The husband when he came back from hard work performed continuously for about 7-8 months, he was never given an appropriate welcome by the wife, every time some complaint or the other was made to be heard by the husband. As and when he reacted she would utter the words that the husband is bastard and so also his father and that instead of living such a life she would commit suicide. The husband did not make any complaint earlier with one objective i.e. to maintain harmony and especially after the birth of the two children. The effort was made to bring up children and educate them in the right and correct perspective in a good school and college. These interests over-weighed the agony suffered by the husband. He continued to send money and in fact allowed the wife to operate the account where the money was transferred from outside by the husband, the amounts were withdrawn but no explanation was given as to how the said money was spent. Such situations became irritants, resultantly, power of attorney of the wife was withdrawn. 30. It has been further argued that the house which is termed as the matrimonial home has to be maintained as a house and not as a hotel. Such situations became irritants, resultantly, power of attorney of the wife was withdrawn. 30. It has been further argued that the house which is termed as the matrimonial home has to be maintained as a house and not as a hotel. In the case at hand, such feeling was given to the husband as if he has come to the place as a guest and he needs to leave after about a month or may be 15-20 or 25 days. In matrimonial home, where a spouse did not find affection and respect, it is impossible to accept the same as matrimonial home. Who is responsible for this status or the state of affairs ? No doubt, both the spouses have to contribute equally to make a house livable. However, the house becomes a house only when the house wife looks after the house as a house and not as a hotel. In general terms, a woman is always defined as a "house wife" and we have never ever heard a word i.e. "house husband". The upkeep of the house, upkeep of the children would ways reflect a woman of the house and in this regard husband definitely has a right to ask the wife to make certain corrections and improvements if the same are required. In the case at hand, such opportunity was never ever given to the husband rather such situations were created that it became impossible for him to live in the house. The husband was mentally affected and corrupted to a great extent and the attendant circumstances were none else but the inclement behaviour of the wife. Mother is the first teacher of the children and she had tutored children to such an extent and in such a manner that they never ever respected their father much less showing any love and affection for him. Resultantly, the atmosphere in the matrimonial home stood polluted to an extent that it became difficult to breathe much less to live in the house. In such a situation, expecting the woman to satisfy the physical desire of the husband would also be impossible even if the husband desires to have physical relations. The apex Court has categorically observed in Parveen Mehtas case (supra), that denial of the sexual intercourse by the wife amounts to mental cruelty. In such a situation, expecting the woman to satisfy the physical desire of the husband would also be impossible even if the husband desires to have physical relations. The apex Court has categorically observed in Parveen Mehtas case (supra), that denial of the sexual intercourse by the wife amounts to mental cruelty. In the case at hand, the petitioner-husband has been placed in such a situation by the wife. No doubt, the persons who are employed in Merchant Navy do not get the opportunity to have physical relations for a long period but it is not generally accepted that such persons would have extra marital affairs but when they come back home they are well within their rights to ask for such relationship. In the case at hand, such relationship has been purposely denied and this has definitely caused mental cruelty to the husband and that the trial court has, therefore, correctly granted the decree of divorce. 31. It has been further argued that a man generally expects respectful behaviour from the wife and so also his family. No doubt respect begets respect but when the respect is duly given but when there is no reciprocity it hurts mentally which in fact cannot be really explained in words. Rightly or wrongly in the set up in our society, a woman has been described as a weaker sex and it has been accepted that she would depend upon her husband in respect of and on account of various matters and this dependency sometimes puts the weight on the shoulder of the husband but this weight is ascribed to the husband under good faith and honestly, every husband would enjoy it but if the same is tainted with disrespect and scornful behaviour the husband loses interest in shouldering such kind of responsibility and which ultimately culminates into mental cruelty. In the case at hand, it has been admitted that both the spouses belong as Sikh families and in Sikh families it is expected that the children should keep long hair but the elder son at the instance of the mother cut his hair and the wife has also cut her hair. The husband, despite his onerous duties as service personnel in Merchant Navy maintained the principles adhered to and respected by the family members. The husband, despite his onerous duties as service personnel in Merchant Navy maintained the principles adhered to and respected by the family members. This also did hurt the husband mentally but despite such disclosures made to the wife, she did not activate the elder son to keep long hair and what to say to herself. This was a constant source of irritants and resultantly mental cruelty. It is the settled law that if the mental cruelty suffered by a spouse makes the life of the said spouse difficult to be lived with the other spouse, it would be in the interest of the parties that the marriage alliance be dissolved legally. 32. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in V. Bhagats case (supra) and Shobha Ranis case (supra). 33. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, persual of the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence brought on record and also an effort having been made for bringing around reconciliation between the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner-respondent has not been able to establish a case of mental cruelty having been suffered by him. 34. The allegations are too vague to accept that mental cruelty has been suffered or is being suffered by the husband continuously and that it is difficult for him to live with the spouse. One instance is that he had come to the house and after opening the door, the wife started shouting "BACHAO BACHAO MAINOO MARAN AAGAYE". This allegation does not inspire confidence that such kind of words were ever used by the wife. The husband and his brother who allegedly accompanied him, have not been able to disclose as to which person from the neighbourhood had come in at that time and that they had made an effort to bring around reconciliation between the husband and the wife. Another allegation has been made that the wife had called him bastard and had also called his father a bastard and that too in the presence of the brother. This also has not been established by way of corroborative evidence and that the only witness to substantiate this allegation is the brother of the petitioner-respondent. Another allegation has been made that the wife had called him bastard and had also called his father a bastard and that too in the presence of the brother. This also has not been established by way of corroborative evidence and that the only witness to substantiate this allegation is the brother of the petitioner-respondent. It is nowhere stated by the brother that after hearing her that she had called their father a bastard, he had said anything to her or had acted or reacted in any manner. Assuming if she has called the father a bastard, is it not that he also happened to be father of the brother, yet no reaction is discernible. Thus, this corroborative evidence does not inspire confidence to accept the allegation. 35. It shall be apposite to note here that the marriage was solemnised in the year 1977. The first child was born in 1978 and the second son in born after about seven years i.e. in 1985, the allegation that the husband was not given the liberty to have sexual intercourse, is not sustainable. There is no allegation that from 1985 upto 1992, he had not been given such indulgence. It is only in 1992 such allegation have been made. 15 years is fairly a long period for having given such indulgence. Perhaps such indulgence would not be denied after such long association. The allegation does not inspite confidence. Apart from this, if the allegations of the husband are accepted for the sake of arguments, will it be acceptable that they were in such a state of mind that they would indulge in sexual intercourse after much has been said and heard especially when she has called him a bastard and so also his father a bastard. The allegations, are self contradictory and are, therefore, not sustainable. 36. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court. It has been held by the Apex Court that mental cruelty on account of the words said and heard would be dependent upon the context in which it has been said and no such circumstances or the context has been qualified by the husband while stepping into witness box as his own witness. The allegations that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. The allegations that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the account has not been sustaintiated rather to the contrary the power of attorney given in favour of the wife had been withdrawn in the year 1985, such is the confidence, faith and trust reposed by the husband in the wife yet she did not make any complaint. The effort on the part of the husband to alienate the property (the allegation has not been emphatically denied or any question has been asked in cross examination to the wife) would go a long way to show the efforts on the part of the husband to bring the wife and children on road. Who has suffered mental cruelty ? From the facts and circumstances brought on record the answer is far too obvious - the husband has not suffered mental cruelty. 37. I have perused the judgment of the trial Court. The discussion is too scanty, it has not been held that the circumstances which culminated into mental cruelty existed right from the beginning and they continued to exist on the date of filing of the petition. The discussion is skeletal without having examined the evidence of the parties in true and correct perspective. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2000, passed by the trial Court is not at all sustainable. 38. In view of the above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.8.2000, passed by the Additional District Judge, is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner-respondent is dismissed with costs. Costs are assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. Decree be drawn accordingly. 39. Before parting with the judgment, it may be noticed that so far as the miscellaneous applications are concerned, learned counsel for the parties had agreed amongst themselves and stated that the appeal be disposed of finally. Resultantly, the appeal has been heard and has been disposed of finally. So far as the claim for maintenance pendente lite is concerned, in this regard C.M. No. 12523-CII of 2000, had been filed which stood disposed of finally vide order dated May 7, 2001 passed by Mehtab S. Gill, J., as such C.M. Nos. 16499-CII, 14500-CII, 16501-CII, 16580-CII, 15925-CII, 20295-CII, 20430-CII, all of 2001, 8297-CII, 8801-CII, 7856-CII, 4357-CII, 5381-CII, 3498-CII, 2131-CII, 2133-CII, all of 2002, do not survive and the same stand dismissed as infructuous. Appeal allowed.