JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3,1.1997 passed by District Judge, Solan, in H.M. Petition No. 21-S/3 of 1995, whereby decree for judicial separation has been granted in favour of the respondent against the appellant. 2. Admittedly parties were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 20.4.1984 at village Kuthar Krishangarh. From this wedlock they have two children, son was 9 years in 1995 when petition was filed and daughter was 5 years at that time. 3. Respondent-husband preferred a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for passing a decree of judicial separation in his favour and against the appellant-wife. According to him parties were living separately since 31.3.1993 and since then they did not have any access to each other as also cohabitation. In fact, they never lived as husband and wife together and there is complete severance of marital ties between them. All this was attributed to the appellant-wife. 4. It was further pleaded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down between the parties and there has been rift between them. This was more than the ordinary wear and tear in a marital home. Thus there was no chance of their living together. The parties were living separately and have lost faith in each other. Psychiatric disease of the appellant was also set up as a ground for the grant of relief prayed in the petition. According to respondent, appellant-wife would leave her matrimonial home without his consent. At times, she would leave the children unattended when husband was away. Because of such ailment, the appellant was medically advised to take certain type of food but she would not bother, this aggravated her ailment. According to respondent in the month of January 1993, ailment of his wife aggravated and during one such moment in the month of January 1995, she tried to hang herself. Thus it was further apprehended that she might commit some wrong in her such illusory moments. These acts aggravated the acts of cruelty. Therefore, decree was prayed for judicial separation. 5. Appellant when put to notice, filed reply and contested the claim of the respondent-husband. While admitting the factum of marriage and children begotten from him, it was pleaded by her that it is she who is looking after the well being of the children because respondent-husband had no time. Therefore, decree was prayed for judicial separation. 5. Appellant when put to notice, filed reply and contested the claim of the respondent-husband. While admitting the factum of marriage and children begotten from him, it was pleaded by her that it is she who is looking after the well being of the children because respondent-husband had no time. She further alleged that in May, 1994 when her sister and brother-in-law visited the parties, she was insulted in the presence of both of them. When her sister took offence to the language of the husband, he (husband) misbehaved with her also. Misbehaviour was attributed to the husband. It was admitted that the appellant-wife has filed proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Husband is also alleged to have held out to the sister and brother-in-law of the appellant that she (appellant) is not good looking, educated and also does not come from a cultured family. Some blank papers were got signed by the husband in the office of lawyer in May, 1994. Thus he was looking for ways and means to get rid of her wife i.e. appellant. As according to her such blank papers were likely to be used for getting the divorce. Plea of her suffering from psychiatric problem was specifically denied. Thus she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. In the aforesaid background following issues were framed on April 13, 1996: 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is suffering from psychiatric problem as alleged? OPP 3. Relief. 7. Evidence was closed on behalf of the petitioner on 1.10.1996 when the case was ordered to be adjourned to 19.10.1996 for being put up before Lok Adalat. Parties were directed to be present on that date. Petitioner was present/but respondent was absent on that date. Case was adjourned to 3.1.1997. List of RWs, process fee, road and diet money was ordered to be filed/deposited within 15 days failing which the respondent was directed to produce her witnesses at her own responsibility. Respondent was also directed to be present. Record of the trial Court shows that no steps were taken for summoning the evidence. In this background trial court, in our opinion rightly so closed the evidence of the appellant and thus passed the impugned judgment and decree, 8. Respondent was also directed to be present. Record of the trial Court shows that no steps were taken for summoning the evidence. In this background trial court, in our opinion rightly so closed the evidence of the appellant and thus passed the impugned judgment and decree, 8. In this behalf we may observe that issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondent-husband and Issue No. 2 was decided against him. Thus relief was granted in view of the findings on Issue No. 1. We may also point out that appellant is only aggrieved by findings of issue No. 1 and relief, whereas husband is not aggrieved from findings of the trial Court on issue No. 2. 9. In the aforesaid background, Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that no case of cruelty was made out on the statement of PW-1 husband as well PW-2 his mother Pushap Lata. He further urged that in view of the stand of the htisband that his wife was suffering from psychiatric problem, she has been wronged by the impugned judgment, therefore, decree ought not to have been passed. He further pointed out that ziminy orders are not correctly recorded by the trial Court. Lastly it was vehemently made out that no case for grant of decree of judicial separation is made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. We may point out that so far cruelty as a ground for judicial-separation/divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is not defined in the Act itself and rightly so. Cruelty need to be assessed and then determined by the Court. Matrimonial harmony, cohabitation and discharge of marital obligation by one spouse towards the other is one of the most essential feature to keep matrimonial bond alive between the parties. 11. Thus it is concluded on the basis of evidence on record that one of the spouses has totally withdrawn from the society of other as also either refuses to cohabit and/or denies to discharge his/her matrimonial obligation towards the other, it will be a clear cut case of cruelty on the part of such spouse to whom such acts are attributable. 12. Cruelty can be physical as well as mental. Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act gives the ground for seeking judicial separation. 12. Cruelty can be physical as well as mental. Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act gives the ground for seeking judicial separation. Those are in case of husband as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13. This is the situation with which we are concerned in the present appeal. Under Section 13(l)(i)(a), where a spouse has after the solemnization of the marriage treated the other with cruelty, former is entitled for a decree of divorce. 13. Here evidence produced by the respondent-husband needs to be noted. According to him both of them are living separately since 30.3.1993 and their relationship as husband and wife was not resumed. As also they never lived together. Husband was not aware as to where the wife was living who had left the house without his wish with the intention never to return, i.e. thus animus desrendi is completely there. Their marriage is complete in shambles. Restoration whereof was impossible. He has further gone on record to state that the appellant was suffering from mental disease. And in January, 1993 she attempted to commit suicide. However, she was rescued by breaking open the door of the room. She misbehaves with the husband. In cross-examination he has stated that he was not aware if the wife fell ill in 1994. He however denied that it was he who had left his wife at her parental house. He also denied that allegation of the wife being insane has been levelled by him without any basis.-He admitted that he never got her treated. He, also denied that he was stopping his wife from coming back. Allegation of his having misbehaved with the appellant in the presence of her sister and brother-in-law thereby lowering her down were denied. Allegation of suicide against wife being incorrect was also denied. Similarly, he denied the suggestion on behalf of the appellant that blank papers were got signed from her with a view to get divorce. He showed his ignorance regarding wife having instituted proceedings for payment of maintenance. To similar effect is the statement of PW-2 Smt. Pushap Lata, mother of the appellant. 14. On the other hand respondent neither filed any list of witnesses in accordance with law nor cared to appear in court. 15. He showed his ignorance regarding wife having instituted proceedings for payment of maintenance. To similar effect is the statement of PW-2 Smt. Pushap Lata, mother of the appellant. 14. On the other hand respondent neither filed any list of witnesses in accordance with law nor cared to appear in court. 15. On appraisal of evidence aforesaid and looking to the circumstances of this case, pleadings of the parties and un-rebutted evidence of the respondent-husband no exception can be taken to the impugned decree. 16. To be fair to Mr. G.D. Verma learned Senior Counsel, we may note another contention urged by him. According to him the entire proceedings before the trial Court stand vitiated for the simple reason that statutory duty enjoined upon the trial Court has not been exercised by it, inasmuch as that steps for reconciliation were not taken. As such, according to him, the impugned decree was liable to be set aside. This argument prima facie appears to be attractive. However, for the reasons to be recorded I hereinafter, it has been raised simply to be rejected. 17. Record of the trial Court shows that after her service, the appellant I did not appear. Thus she was set ex parte on 23.6.1995. She filed an application setting aside ex parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. This application came up before the trial Court. It was allowed on 23.8.1995. Record of the case further shows that ten minutes were spent for conciliation. This is what is contained in the order dated 23.8.1995, passed on application No. 209-S/6 of 1995, dated 3.8.1995. 18. Case was taken up to Lok Adalat on 19.10.1996. Admittedly appellant did not appear when respondent was present. Even on the next date, she did not appear. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the trial Court was not supposed to have waited for her appearance. Nor could it force the presence of the appellant. Directions were issued for her appearance in Court. She chose to keep away. In case she had appeared on the date fixed by the trial Court and thereafter conciliation was not attempted she could made a grievance. Admittedly it is not the situation on record. Thus, the plea raised in that behalf on the basis of Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act is hereby rejected. 19. She chose to keep away. In case she had appeared on the date fixed by the trial Court and thereafter conciliation was not attempted she could made a grievance. Admittedly it is not the situation on record. Thus, the plea raised in that behalf on the basis of Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act is hereby rejected. 19. In addition to this during the pendency of the appeal, conciliation was attempted by this Court, however, it failed as is evident from order dated 29.4.1998. Mr. Verma with a view to advance this plea that failure of the trial Court to attempt conciliation prayed that the impugned decree is to be set aside, placed reliance in case Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh, AIR 1998 SC 764. This decision is clearly distinguishable. Reason being that in the present appeal before us, trial Court had made an attempt for reconciliation at the time when ex parte proceedings were set aside against the appellant. Thereafter, when the case was sent to the Lokadalat husband was present but wife was absent. Again she was directed to be present as also to take steps for getting her witnesses summoned failing which to bring the witnesses at her own responsibility. She did nothing to comply with any of the directions issued by the trial Court. Thus we are satisfied that the fault if any, lies not with the trial Court but with the appellant. Reconciliation failed in this court as is clear from the record. In case if on these facts plea of the appellant is upheld it will tantamount to put premium on her acts of omission and commission. Thus allowing appellant to take advantage of her own wrongs. This is not the purpose of Section 23 (supra). 20. So far plea of Mr. Verma that since wife according to husband was not in a fit state of mind, therefore decree needs to be set aside is concerned, it has no force. Reason being that it is neither admitted by her in her reply before the trial Court, nor it was so admitted by him at the time of hearing of this appeal. On the other hand wife has specifically denied all these allegations. Besides contesting the claim of the respondent-husband on this ground. She has cross-examined PWs 1 and 2. Reason being that it is neither admitted by her in her reply before the trial Court, nor it was so admitted by him at the time of hearing of this appeal. On the other hand wife has specifically denied all these allegations. Besides contesting the claim of the respondent-husband on this ground. She has cross-examined PWs 1 and 2. However, when it came to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent, for reasons best known to her she has chosen to keep away from the court. As such this plea is devoid of any merit or substance. Though learned Counsel persisted that respondent-husband is bound by his admission regarding wife being not iii a fit state of mind. Another significant reason to discard this ground is that findings under issue No.2 covering such plea of the husband have been recorded against him. He has accepted those. Thus it is not understood as to on what basis in law such an argument is being raised on behalf of the appellant. 21. At the risk of repetition we may observe that cruelty on the part of the appellant towards respondent-husband is clearly made out on the basis of the evidence on record which has remained un-rebutted and thus the decree needs to be upheld. For taking this view reference can be made to Kamaljit Bhullar v. Nimrat Preet Singh Bhullar, 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 156; Smt. Parimi Mehar Seshu v. Parimi Nageszvara Sastry, AIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 92; Smt. Uma Wanti v. Arjan Dev, AIR 1995 P. & H. 312 and Dr. N.D. Dastane v. M.S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534. 22. Cruelty can be inferred from the totality of the facts and matrimonial relations between the parties and interaction in their daily life explaining the same. The matter that needs to be decided by a court regarding spouse being treated with cruelty is on the basis of over all examination of the circumstances and situation in a case. Having left the matrimonial home since 31.3.1993 without animus revertendi, is a good ground for holding that the wife has treated the husband with such cruelty entitling him to seek a decree for judicial separation. No other ground is urged. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is finally dismissed with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.