JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 2001 whereby the suit filed by the respondent-husband for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been decreed. 2. The case of the respondent-husband as pleaded in the plaint is that he was married with the appellant on 16th February, 1997 at Telco Colony, Jamshedpur. After the marriage, both the husband and the wife lived together at Govindpur, Jamshedpur before 3rd of April, 1997. The marriage was duly consummated. Since the respondent was a practicing lawyer at Patna, he had to return to Patna, whereas the appellant continued to live in her matrimonial house at Jamshedpur. The respondent's case is that he assured the appellant that as soon as he arranged for a suitable accommodation at Patna, he shall take her there. But after his departure, the behaviour of the appellant with the parents of the respondent became extremely bad. She not only misbehaved with the respondent but also with his parents. It is alleged that she was not prepared to do household work which is expected from a housewife. Whenever she was requested to do something, she used to abuse the respondent and shouted at the tope of her voice threatening that if she was asked to do something, she would leave the house and put all of them in trouble. According to the respondent, the main reason of such behaviour of the appellant was due to non-fulfillment of demand of heavy amount of money for shopping. It was further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the appellant had been putting pressure to take her to Patna failing which she shall not allow his family members to live in peace. The respondent assured her to take her to Patna as soon as possible. But as soon as the respondent left for Patna in 3rd week of April, 1997, the respondent went bark to her parents' house without any consent or knowledge of the respondent and his parents. The respondent's parents alleged to have become disturbed and contacted the father of the appellant and learnt that she had returned to her parents' house. 3. But as soon as the respondent left for Patna in 3rd week of April, 1997, the respondent went bark to her parents' house without any consent or knowledge of the respondent and his parents. The respondent's parents alleged to have become disturbed and contacted the father of the appellant and learnt that she had returned to her parents' house. 3. The respondent's further case is that the appellant returned to her matrimonial house in the first week of September, 1997 and forced the appellant to take her to Patna. The respondent had no option but to take her to Patna in the first week of September, 1997 where the appellant became furious due to paucity of accommodation. She did not like to live for a couple of days and left Patna on the same day against the desire and without knowledge of the respondent. It is alleged by the respondent that this a<:t of the appellant created a mental torture to him. Later on, he came to know that the appellant returned to Jamshedpur to her parents' house instead of her marital house. The respondent's further case is that he rushed to Jamshedpur and on his repeated requests, the appellant came to the hospital on 23rd June 1998 as his father was hospitalized because of brain haemorrhage. The appellant became pregnant in the month of July, 1998 and she continued to live in her parents' house and gave birth to a female child on 20th March, 1999. It is stated by the respondent that since at that time he was at Patna, he had no information regarding the birth of the child. Lastly, it is alleged by the respondent that the appellant completely deserted him from 1st August, 1998. 4. The appellant appeared and filed written statement wherein she denied all the allegations made by the respondent. The appellant's case is that as soon as she was taken to her matrimonial house after marriage, the respondent and his parents made demand of Maruti Car and cost of furniture for the chamber of the respondent at Patna. The respondent left for Patna and warned the appellant that whenever she went to her parents' house, she should not return to her matrimonial house without fulfillment of the demand. It is alleged that during her stay in the marital house, the behaviour of the respondent and his parents was not at all good. The respondent left for Patna and warned the appellant that whenever she went to her parents' house, she should not return to her matrimonial house without fulfillment of the demand. It is alleged that during her stay in the marital house, the behaviour of the respondent and his parents was not at all good. She has denied that she was ever treated with dignity of a housewife. As a matter of fact, the respondent and his parents used to behave in a rude manner and his mother was not satisfied with 15 tolas of gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. The in-laws were not happy since the appellant's father had not obliged them by giving car and cost of furniture of chamber at Patna. They used to find fault in every domestic work performed by the appellant. She has stated that the respondent never assured her to take her to Patna. She also denied to have ever threatened the respondent and his parents in presence of their friends and relatives. On the contrary, she was subjected to various types of cruelty, indignity and harassment. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below formulated five issues which are as under: (i) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable in law? (ii) Whether the applicant has gut of cause or action and right to sue? (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief of decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion? (iv) Whether the applicant is a guilty spouse as provided under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act? (v) To what relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? 6. The Court below decided the finding on issue No. (iii) in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and came to the conclusion that there is element of animus diserendi between both the parties and due to this hostility, the appellant never wanted to live to her marital house and finally deserted the respondent on 01.8.1998. The Court further held that the respondent had been able to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion against his wife. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 7. The Court further held that the respondent had been able to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion against his wife. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 7. Before discussing the evidence on the basis of which the aforesaid findings has been recorded by the Court below, we would first like to mention here that alter the respondent-husband appeared in the appeal, we fixed a date for conciliation and both the parties were directed to appear in person. On 23.11.2006, we tried reconciliation by interacting with the parties jointly and separately in the chamber, but we could not find any positive response from the side of the respondent-husband. We, therefore, fixed the appeal for admission and hearing. The order dated 23.11.2006 recorded in the appeal reads as under: Pursuant to order dated 2.11.2006, both the appellant and the respondent appeared in person. We tried our best for reconciliation but the respondent-husband is not at all ready and willing to settle the dispute and to lead marital life. Hence, let this matter be listed for Admission. 8. Cruelty has not been defined, but it is now well settled that the conduct should be grave and weighty so as to make cohabitation virtually intolerable. It must t>e more serious than the original weary and tear of marriage the cumulative conduct, taken into consideration the circumstances and the backgrounds of the parties, has to be examined to reach a conclusion whether the act amounts to cruelty. There cannot be any dispute with regard to legal position that cruelty may either mental or physical and includes both acts and omission. The question of cruelty should be answered in the light of the norms of the marital ties of the particular society to which the party belong, their social value, status of parties, physical and mental condition, the interaction between them in their daily life and other various factors. 9. First of all, we shall discuss the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent who was examined as PW.1. Firstly, the plaintiff-respondent never pleaded any evidence with regard to physical assault by the appellant to him or to his family members However, it was pleaded that the appellant in collusion with her father tried to harass the family of the respondent by filing false criminal cases against him and his family members under Sections 325, 341, 504, 307, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was pleaded that because of criminal cases, the respondent had to remain in jail for two months. The said act of the appellant caused mental and physical torture on the respondent and also economic loss and reputation of his family. In para.9 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that in the 1st week of April, 1997, when the appellant did not get up one day in the morning upto 8 O'clock, he requested her to get up and on his such request, she got furious and went upto raising her hand with an object to assault on the respondent in presence of his parents, whereas in para.11 of his evidence, the respondent has said that in April, 1997, one day when he went to wake up the appellant, she replied that she had to go to school and to him and it is much early to get up. 10. The father of respondent was examined as PW.2. He has stated that from 1.8.1998, both the appellant and the respondent are living separately. The behaviour of Manju (appellant) in his matrimonial house was not proper and she did not take the family responsibility. She went to Patna, but on the same day returned back. In 1997, she came to her matrimonial home on 10.11.1997. She went back to her parents' house without telling anybody. In para. 29 of his cross-examination, the father of the respondent has categorically deposed that he cannot keep the appellant in his house because he has no faith on her. PW.3 is Jai Prakash Narayn Rai, a Patna resident in whose house the respondent was living as a tenant. He has said that the appellant came to Patna, but on the same day, she returned back. He has said that he has no knowledge about the relationship of the appellant and the respondent. PW.4 is Triyogi Narain Singh, a friend of the respondent's father. In para. 11 of his evidence, he has said that he used to go to respondent's house where the behaviour of the appellant was found not proper. She did not even use to offer tea to him. However, in para.9 of his cross-examination, he has said that he used to go to meet the respondent's father, but she never came before him. 11. She did not even use to offer tea to him. However, in para.9 of his cross-examination, he has said that he used to go to meet the respondent's father, but she never came before him. 11. These are the evidence on the basis of which the Court below has recorded a finding of cruelty and desertion. 12. On consideration and re-appreciation of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the allegation of cruelty and desertion has not been conclusively and satisfactorily proved by the plaintiff-respondent There are acts and omission from the side of the appellant, but that itself will not lead to the collusion that it is the appellant who behaved in a cruel manner and deserted the respondent-her husband. The finding recorded by the Court below on such evidence of the witnesses which were not even pleaded in the plaint, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in law and dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce cannot be passed. 13. The important question that arises now is as to whether after the judgment and decree is held to be not sustained in law, the parties will be in a position to live together. 14. As noticed above, this Court, before hearing of the appeal, tried for reconciliation, but the respondent is not at all ready and willing to settle the dispute and to lead a marital life. By filing interlocutory applications, the respondent has stated that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably been broken down since last one decade and the same has been rendered a dead wood and as such, exigency of the situation demands the dissolution of such marriage and to put an end to the agony and bitterness between the parties. 15. As noticed above, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on 3rd April, 1997 and the appellant, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home and went back to her parents' house on 1st August, 1998 and the couples have been living separately since more than a decade. Since then, there are litigations after litigations including criminal case under Section 323, 341, 504, 302, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 16. Since then, there are litigations after litigations including criminal case under Section 323, 341, 504, 302, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 16. After having given our anxious consideration on the facts of the case and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, we are of the view that any attempt of reconciliation will be futile and it would be in the interest of both the parties to sever the matrimonial ties between the parties, since the marriage has been broken down irretrievably. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court, we are further of the view that since the marriage between the parties is dead for all purposes and there is no chance of its being retrieved, the continuance of such marriage would itself amount to cruelly and accordingly, we hold that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved. However, considering the fact that it is the respondent-husband who is adamant not to continue the marital relation, we direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. Two lacs by way of permanent alimony to the appellant which shall be the condition for dissolution of marriage. It is also made clear that the respondent shall continue payment of alimony @ Rs. 2500/- (Rupees) Two thousand and five hundred only) per month as maintenance for the child.