JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- The marriage between the parties went to rocks, which was solemnized on 8.7.1997 as per Hindu rites at village Bidhipur, district Kapurthala. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce and vide order dated 14.9.2006 marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved against the passing of the decree, appellant-wife knocked at the door of this court. 2. The other facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that the husband filed a petition alleging therein that the marriage between the parties took place on 8.7.1997 and it was a simple marriage. No dowry was demanded nor was given in the said marriage. The respondent-husband is a doctor by profession and was serving in Health Department, Punjab Government at that time. It was agreed that wife will settle in India and live with him at his village Mehsampur, tehsil Nakodar. The appellant-wife left India on 28,29.7.1997 after marriage on the pretext that she will come back on or before 27.8.1997 after collecting her belongings and finishing other matters in America, but after reaching there, she neither wrote any letter nor made any telephone call nor she came back to India to join the company of her husband. It is further pointed out that husband made frequent calls and wrote many letters, but the appellant-wife did not give any encouraging response to him and ultimately she refused to join his company without any reason, which caused mental agony to him. Thereafter, husband filed a divorce petition in the Court of District Judge, Kapurthala, but during the pendency of the case, the well wishers of the family intervened and it was assured that the appellant-wife will come back to India and join the society of the respondent-husband and on that assurance, the petition was withdrawn on 5.10.2000, but to utter surprise of the husband, appellant never came back to India and rather through friends and relations, she offered sponsoring the respondent for immigration to U.S.A., but the Embassy refused to grant Visa to the respondent since he was not sponsored by wife. In order to stop the respondent to file divorce petition again, appellant got a false case registered under Sections 498-A/406/506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi against the respondent and his family members under FIR No. 242 dated 10.12.2001. Thereafter on further investigation, the case was found to have been falsely registered and ultimately, the same was cancelled and in this manner, husband has categorically pleaded that his wife has treated him with cruelty and she has also deserted him without any sufficient cause or reason for the last more than two years. 3. On the other hand, this petition was contested by the appellant-wife and through written statement, she pointed out that this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this case as the parties never resided or cohabited together at village Mehsampur, tehsil Nakodar; that the respondent-husband is barred by his act and conduct to file the present petition since the earlier divorce petition filed by him on the same facts was dismissed. It has been stated on merits that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. In fact, an amount of Rs.6 lacs was spent on her marriage. She further disclosed that at the time of marriage, it was agreed to live in America after the marriage, but she after reaching America, regularly made telephone calls to him and also sent books to him so that he may appear in the examinations. She also sent sponsorship to the respondent, but it was due to ill-luck that the respondent was refused visa. She also disclosed that she is still ready to take him to abroad and by denying the other assertions, she has finally prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. Husband chose to file replication, where he reiterated his stand denying the assertions made in the written statement. On these conflicting pleadings of parties, the learned lower court, after framing of issues and assessment of evidence on record, dissolved the marriage of the parties by passing a decree of divorce. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 6. Before I peep through the evidence led by the evidence, I would like to observe that the word “cruelty” in matrimonial law, has not the same meaning as it has in its ordinary dictionary. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 6. Before I peep through the evidence led by the evidence, I would like to observe that the word “cruelty” in matrimonial law, has not the same meaning as it has in its ordinary dictionary. In fact, the Court could apply its mind keeping in view the facts of the case whether the act of the parties would cause any harm to any of the spouse, if that forces to live together. 7. Cruelty, in matrimonial law, may be of infinite variety, it cannot be subtle or brutal. It may be by words, gesture or by mere silence, violence or non-violence and that is why it is not possible to give exclusive definition of cruelty as understood in matrimonial law. The present case is itself of own nature with their peculiar facts and the entire case has to be scrutinized in view of what has been observed above. 8. Now reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, the events in the instant case clearly spell out that the marriage between the parties took place on 8.7.1997 in district Kapurthala and wife left for United States of America, where she was residing at the time of marriage. She lived with her husband for about 20 days only and she left India and company of the husband on the intervening night of 28/29.7.1997 with the promise to return back soon but did not come back till date. It is again admitted case of the respondent that she has not stepped into the witness box to state reason for her not coming back to India nor any such reason has been given by her attorney, Nazir Singh, who stepped into the witness box as RW-1. I find that the attorney, when stepped into the witness box, he replied that he did not know or that did not remember. Every married man wants to enjoy the warmth of his marital life. Failure on part of the wife to step into the witness box has advanced the case of the respondent towards cruelty at the hands of his wife. Every married man wants to enjoy the warmth of his marital life. Failure on part of the wife to step into the witness box has advanced the case of the respondent towards cruelty at the hands of his wife. Moreover, appellant-wife got a case registered against her husband and her relatives under Sections 406/498-A/506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, which was later on found to be a false one and the FIR was cancelled by the police. The very filing of a false criminal case registered against the husband and his family members again amounts to cruelty. It is true that by performance of marriage ceremony, both the parties were tied on such bond and the wife opted to remain with the husband only for 20 days. To my mind, sex is the foundation of marriage and without vigorous and harmonious activities, it would be impossible for any marriage to continue and in the instant case, appellant and the respondent did not travel further after the performance of religious sermon. It cannot be denied that sexual activity in marriage and that too particularly on the wedding night has extremely favourable influence on a woman’s mind and body. It has been rightly said that sexual relation when happy and harmonious vivifies women’s brain, develops her character and vitality. It is well recognized that nothing more fatal to marriage than disappointment and now reverting back to the admitted case of this petition that husband and wife saw the light of the marriage only for 20 days, therefore, it caused great mental stress or strain on the mind of husband. Continuance of long separation of the wife is certainly covered under the definition of mental cruelty as provided by various judicial pronouncements under matrimonial law. Leaving husband all alone will inevitably damage the health both mentally and physically without any fault on his part and in the final analysis, no interference is called for. There is nothing to be set right. 9. In the light of what has been discussed above, I do not see any irregularity or impropriety in the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The same is hereby affirmed. Consequently, appeal file by wife has got no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. ———————