Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25. 1. 2000 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 39-A/ 1999, the appellant/wife has preferred the appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the decree of divorce under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2. ) THE admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 14. 2. 1994 at Bhopal according to Hindu rites and customs and from their wedlock on 29. 1. 1995 a son was born, who is at present living with the appellant/wife. ( 3. ) THE case of the respondent/petitioner is that after the marriage, in 1995 the appellant/wife misbehaved with the respondent and his parents and she threatens that the petitioner should get prepared himself to face the dire consequences. That on 30. 3. 1995, the appellant, in the absence of the petitioner, has left the matrimonial house with all her belongings. The petitioner has prayed for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. ( 4. ) THE appellant/wife has denied that she has misbehaved or threatened the respondent or his parents. The appellant has alleged that after the birth of the son from the wedlock, namely, Rajat on 29. 1. 1995, the behaviour of the petitioner became violent and she was ill-treated for the demand of dowry and the appellant even denied the food. The appellant has further stated that it is incorrect that she has abruptly left the matrimonial house on 30. 3. 1995. The truth is that the petitioner and his parents physically assaulted and expelled her from the house. The appellant has pleaded that the petitioner is guilty of committing the matrimonial wrong against her and as such he is not entitled to get the decree of divorce on account of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. ( 5. ) AFTER framing the issues, the learned Trial Court has examined the appellant and the respondent. No witnesses were produced either by the appellant or the respondent. ( 5. ) AFTER framing the issues, the learned Trial Court has examined the appellant and the respondent. No witnesses were produced either by the appellant or the respondent. Learned Trial Court has held that the appellant has left the matrimonial house without reasonable cause and as such she is guilty of mental cruelty and thereby the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. ( 6. ) THE appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated and assessed the evidence and the impugned judgment and decree are against the facts and law applicable in the case. ( 7. ) BALKRISHNA (A. W. 1) has stated that on 28. 3. 1995, without seeking the permission of the parents went to the office and when she came back in the evening, she started abusing and ill-treating his parents. Balkrishna (A. W. 1) has further stated that when he asked his wife to serve the meal after washing her hands, she started throwing utensils and in a loud voice uttered abuses. The petitioner has not examined either his parents or the neighbours. The solitary incident on 28. 3. 1995 of the wife leaving for office without telling her in-laws and then start quarrelling in the evening when she was asked to serve the meal after washing her hand is of trivial nature and it is not sufficient to constitute the matrimonial offence of cruelty. The appellant is an officer in the Government Department and even an ordinary married wife deserved the respect to the personality, dignity and her individuality. The wife is partner in life and not slave or maid servant. It is not proper for the respondent to pray the Court that on the basis of the alleged incident it should be held that the behaviour of the appellant/ wife was transgression of her matrimonial duty. ( 8. ) APPELLANT Rajni (NAW 1) has stated that she is living separately from March, 1995 and her husband has never tried to take her back to matrimonial house. The respondent/husband has not examined any witness to show that he made an attempt to bring back his wife to live with him. ( 8. ) APPELLANT Rajni (NAW 1) has stated that she is living separately from March, 1995 and her husband has never tried to take her back to matrimonial house. The respondent/husband has not examined any witness to show that he made an attempt to bring back his wife to live with him. Learned Trial Court has observed that the appellant/wife is living separately from her husband for more than four years and as such she has deprived the respondent from marital obligations and cohabitation which amounts and constitute the offence or mental cruelty. The expectation of the respondent/husband from the wife who is the Government officer at Bhopal was disproportionately high and not in consonance with the normal, social and family values. ( 9. ) LEARNED Trial Court has observed that the act of the appellant/wife living separately from her husband without reasonable cause has amounted to cruelty. In my opinion, learned Trial Court has overlooked the social status of the appellant/wife, customs and traditions, education level and the environment in which the appellant/wife was working. Respondent/husbands stubborn attitude and over expectations from his wife, was not in accordance with dignity and personality of the appellant/wife. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant/wife was justified in living separately from her husband. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition of the respondent/husband cannot be allowed on the ground that desertion of five years has resulted in the mental cruelty because that is prohibited under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and it will certainly amount to giving an advantage to the respondent/husband of his own wrong. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed. I hereby set aside the impugned judgment and decree. The petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.