Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the appellant Smt. Mayawanti against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. 2. The appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the ground that respondent has treated her with cruelty and has deserted her within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Act. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.5.1990. The muklawa ceremony (i.e. the bringing of the wife) was also performed. After the marriage, parties stayed at village Kaliawas for about a week. It is the case of the appellant that during her stay, she was not treated as a wife and the respondent gave her severe beatings for no fault on her part. The respondent used to come home after consuming liquor under heavy intoxication and then he misbehaved with her. This was his routine. Besides, consuming liquor, the respondent is also alleged to be gambling and addicted to taking sulfa (mixture of tobacoo and cannabis smoked as intoxicant). During her stay, she was not even given the bare necessities of life and was forced to leave the house, The treatment of the respondent towards the appellant left her with no alternative except to leave the housed The appellant sent information to her parents and her brother brought her to her parental house on 2.5.1993. She narrated the entire story to her parents and other family members. Since then she is residing with her parents at village Jamalpur, Tehsil Jhajjar, without any fault on her part and no one has come from the side of the respondent to take her back. On these premises, the appellant alleges that she has been treated with cruelty and has a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would not be feasible or in her interest to lead such a life and she apprehends danger to her life. She has been deserted by the respondent without any reasonable cause. 3. The respondent filed his written statement and admitted the factum of marriage and the fact that the appellant resided with him. However, he states that the appellant stayed with him for more than one month. The other allegations are denied. She has been deserted by the respondent without any reasonable cause. 3. The respondent filed his written statement and admitted the factum of marriage and the fact that the appellant resided with him. However, he states that the appellant stayed with him for more than one month. The other allegations are denied. It is submitted by the respondent that the appellant was given due respect in the matrimonial home as a wife and she was given the responsibility of managing the house as a house wife. She was treated as a legally wedded wife. He also states that there was no dispute between the parties and, therefore, there is no question of giving beatings or of mis-behaving with the appellant. The respondent further states that he is very obedient towards his wife and her parents. He is leading a promising life without any complaint from the wife and society. He is very sincere and never consumes liquor as alleged. Neither does he indulge in gambling nor consuming sulfa as alleged. Besides, he has never been apprehended by the police for this purpose nor any complaint has been filed by any one for doing such illegal acts. It is stated that the appellant was treated nicely with all requisite facilities in the matrimonial house. The appellant in fact left the house along with the respondent to attend a marriage of her cousin with the motive to perform the rituals of the marriage. He states that the appellant is residing at her parental house of her own sweet will and that after a gap of 15 days he went to bring her but she refused. He again went along with the panchayat. However, the father and brother respectively of the appellant flatly refused to let the appellant accompany him. 4. The petitioner filed a replication to the written statement in which she denied the averments of the respondent as made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken by her in the petition. 5. The appellant also filed an application under Section 27 of the Act for return of her dowry articles. The list of the articles is given in the said application. 6. The respondent filed reply to the said application in which he denied the averments regarding dowry and dowry articles. 5. The appellant also filed an application under Section 27 of the Act for return of her dowry articles. The list of the articles is given in the said application. 6. The respondent filed reply to the said application in which he denied the averments regarding dowry and dowry articles. He stated that he had simply taken seven steps around the holy fire on 2.5.1990 and nothing was presented to him. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was a simple affair and no dowry articles were given as alleged. On these pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, if so, to what effect? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without reasonable and sufficient cause, if so to what effect? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of articles mentioned in her application under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act? OPP. 4. Relief. 7. The learned Additional District Judge, decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and dismissed the petition. It is against the said judgment and decree, as already noticed, that the present appeal has been filed. 8. Earlier the respondent was represented by a counsel, who, it was informed had shifted to the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, this Court issued notice-to the respondent for 4.12.2002. The report of the Registry is to the effect that the respondent has taken notice but refused to give his signatures. Therefore, he is proceeded against exparte and the matter is taken up for consideration in his absence. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance gone through the records of the case. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the appellant has stayed in her matrimonial home for a very short duration and it is a case of marriage which has completely and irretrievably broken down. He further contends that the appellant in her statement had stated that the respondent was addicted to consumption of liquor and sulfa, besides, he was in the habit of gambling. However, the learned trial Court has not recorded any findings in this regard. He further contends that the appellant in her statement had stated that the respondent was addicted to consumption of liquor and sulfa, besides, he was in the habit of gambling. However, the learned trial Court has not recorded any findings in this regard. Besides, the learned trial Court has erred in recording a finding that the statement of the father of the appellant was not reliable and that the appellants evidence was not in accordance with the pleadings. Therefore, he prays that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the said contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and, therefore, should be dissolved. Irretrievable break down of a marriage is not a ground for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Even otherwise a marriage cannot by itself be dissolved on the ground that has irretrievably broken down. 11. The Honble Supreme Court in B. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 S.C.C. 337 held that merely because there are allegations and counter allegations, a decree for divorce cannot follow. Nor is mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings itself a ground for divorce. There must be some extra ordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleadings (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Besides, irretrievable break down of marriage is a fact to be kept in mind while determining whether marriage should be allowed to be dissolved but the fact that marriage has irretrievably broken down is not a ground by itself to dissolve the marriage. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty so as to cause reasonable apprehension in her mind that the respondent has committed such acts which endanger her physical health or gives a cause for apprehension of inflicting bodily injury. Besides, whether the conduct of the respondent has caused a mental or emotional suffering or induces fear in respect of the matrimonial relationship. The legal concept of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act. The legislature has refrained from giving a comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover all cases. The legal concept of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act. The legislature has refrained from giving a comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover all cases. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling of one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioral pattern by the other It is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case established by the evidence on record and only then can the inference be drawn that the petitioner has been caused to suffer mental cruelty by the respondent. Individual instances of misbehaviour seen in isolation are not sufficient to establish mental cruelty. In order to establish cruelty, the conduct must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health (physical or mental) or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. This has been accepted to be the meaning of cruelty and has been held by Courts rather difficult to define. It is to be assessed bearing in mind the social status of the parties, their customs and traditions, their educational level and the environment in which they live. It is in this context that the case of the parties is to be examined. 12. The evidence on record shows that the appellant appeared as her own witness as PW1 and her father Ram Mehar appeared as PW2. Both of them made general averments with regard to the respondent consuming liquor and ill-treatment meted out by him to the appellant, besides, the allegations of other demands regarding dowry. In the cross-examination, the appellant had stated that her father had taken panchayat to the village of the respondent. Besides she further states that she did not lodge any report regarding the beating given to her. She admits that the marriage of her cousin brother Bhoop Singh was to take place and she was brought from her matrimonial home on account of information sent by her. Her father has made somewhat similar statement. He denies the suggestion that the respondent has brought a panchayat to the village. 13. The respondent in his evidence has appeared as his own witness and denied the allegations against him. Her father has made somewhat similar statement. He denies the suggestion that the respondent has brought a panchayat to the village. 13. The respondent in his evidence has appeared as his own witness and denied the allegations against him. He states that he went with the panchayat to bring the appellant but the appellant side asked for 15 days time. However, the appellant did not come and she is living voluntarily in her parental home. He states that he wants to keep her with him. He denied the allegations of harassment or consuming liquor. His father Bhateri, who is an agriculturist appeared as RW2 and reiterated the stand taken by his son and the evidence was closed. 14. The evidence lead by the appellant to prove her case for grant of divorce is absolutely and wholly insufficient to hold that she has been subjected to cruelty of such a degree which can in any manner be said that the conduct of the respondent is of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health (physical or mental) or as to give to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The appellant has not referred to any particular incident of misbehaviour on the part of the respondent. She has made general and vague allegations and such allegations even is accepted to be correct are only at the most instance of misbehavior which are in isolation. These are not sufficient to establish cruelty mental or physical. The only substantial allegation which the appellant alleges is that the respondent was in the habit of intoxication and was addicted to sulfa. The further case of the appellant, however, is that the respondent is in the habit of excessive drinking. However, there is nothing to establish this aspect and therefore, cannot be taken as an independent ground for the grant of matrimonial relief. The nature of evidence lead can at the most be circumstances to be taken into account to establish cruelty if indulged by a spouse and continued despite protest by the others. The appellant has lived with the respondent for a very short while and thereafter she has made no offer to join his company. The respondent has clearly stated that he is willing to keep the appellant and look after her. The appellant has lived with the respondent for a very short while and thereafter she has made no offer to join his company. The respondent has clearly stated that he is willing to keep the appellant and look after her. In these circumstance, in my view, the appellant is not entitled to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty. The endeavour is always to preserve the institution of the marriage. The Honble Supreme Court in Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh, (1997)11 S.C.C. 701 observed that a petition for divorce is not a like any other commercial suit. A divorce not only affects the parties their children, if any, and their families but the society also feels its reverberations. Stress should always be on preserving the institution of marriage. This is the requirement of law. Keeping in view the nature of evidence produced on record and the social status of the parties, their customs and traditions their educational level and the environment in which they live, it may be noticed that the parties are living in rural areas and are illiterate or semi-literate. The appellant has thumb marked her pleadings and evidence. The respondent has signed in Hindi. The social environment in which they live would not in my view, from the material on record be conducive to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 15. In so far as desertion is concerned the findings of the learned trial Court warrant no interference. The main element of desertion as has been carved out by the Courts are; (a) the fact of separation (factum deserendi) and (b) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Adhydatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi, (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 308 while dealing with the desertion held as follows;- 7. "Desertion" in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of this offence in order that it may furnish a ground for relief are: 1. the factum of separation; 2. the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end-animus deserendi; 3. "Desertion" in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of this offence in order that it may furnish a ground for relief are: 1. the factum of separation; 2. the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end-animus deserendi; 3. the element of permanence which is a prime condition requires that both these essential ingredients should continue during the entire statutory period; The clause lays down the rule that desertion to amount to a matrimonial offence must be for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This clause has to be read with the Explanation. The explanation has widened the definition of desertion to include "wilful neglect" of the petitioning spouse by the respondent. It states that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner. From the Explanation it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended to give to the expression a wide import which includes wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. Therefore, for the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned two essential conditions must be there namely (1) the factum of separation and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation 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. The petition for divorce bears the burden of proving those elements in the two spouses respectively and their continuance throughout the statutory period." 16. In the light of the above dictum of the Honble Apex Court the question of desertion in the case in hand may be examined. It may be seen that the fact of separation (factum deserendi) is established in this case. However, there is nothing that has been brought on the record to show that there is an intention of living away from her husband without any reasonable cause or without the consent of her husband or against his wishes. It is not the case of the appellant even that she made any effort to resolve the matter. However, there is nothing that has been brought on the record to show that there is an intention of living away from her husband without any reasonable cause or without the consent of her husband or against his wishes. It is not the case of the appellant even that she made any effort to resolve the matter. It is only in the cross examination that the appellant states that her father took a panchayat. However, this aspect is not pleaded by her in her petition and in the absence of pleadings, this evidence is without any basis, particularly when she states that this fact only in her cross-examination. On the other hand, the respondent has expressed his desire to live with the appellant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellant has failed to prove that she has been treated with cruelty or has been deserted. 17. With regard to the question of return of dowry no arguments were urged before the learned trial court nor has any been urged before this Court. 18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.