Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the applicant appellant against the dismissal of his application for decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage on grounds under section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage 1955. . ( 2. ) APPLICANT/appellant and non -applicant / respondent are husband and wife account of having performed marriage on 11. 05. 2003 at Rewa as per Hindu anc rituals, applicant/appellant was appointed as Lieutenant in the Indian Ar w. e. f. 12. 06. 1999. He was promoted to the rank of Captain in June. 2000. He we posted at Delhi in February. 2002. Thus, at the time of marriage, he was holding the post of Captain. Later on, in July, 2003, he was promoted as Major and was posted at Mhow (Indore ). He was transferred to Leh (J and K) in January, 2004 and was thereafter transferred to Banglore in May, 2005. Thus, at the time of marriage, applicant/appellant was Captain in Indian Army. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the applicant/appellant, the respondent-wife is having qualification of M. Sc. and M. B. A. Her father was retired from M. P. E. B. and after superannuation, he was engaged in the business of contractor ship. Respondent herself was engaged as Development Officer with Bajaj Alliance at Rewa from november, 2005 to May, 2006 and was at the time of filing of divorce petition holding the post of Manager, Human Resources in J. P. Cement at Rewa. ( 4. ) ON 24. 06. 2006 applicant/appellant admitted an application for seeking divorce with allegations that at the time of marriage and thereafter he was posted at family Head Quarters and was capable of keeping his wife with him. Respondent-wife pressurized him unduly to leave the job and join her fathers business of contractorship and get settled there, otherwise, she would not lead the marital life with him. She also threatened that she would commit suicide and would implicate the applicant/appellant and his family members in a criminal ease. She also humiliated the applicant/appellant in presence, of his colleagues. Thus, it was alleged that the respondent-wife acted with cruelty. Her conduct caused apprehension in the mind of applicant/appellant that it would be risky to live with respondent-wife. The conduct of the respondent-wife also made intolerable to the applicant/appellant to have co-habitation with her. She also humiliated the applicant/appellant in presence, of his colleagues. Thus, it was alleged that the respondent-wife acted with cruelty. Her conduct caused apprehension in the mind of applicant/appellant that it would be risky to live with respondent-wife. The conduct of the respondent-wife also made intolerable to the applicant/appellant to have co-habitation with her. This apart, the respondent-wife deserted the applicant/appellant without any justifiable cause for a continuous period of two years prior to submission of application for divorce. ( 5. ) APPLICANT/appellant on 24. 05. 2004 came to Satna being his home town with respondent-wife. She without consent of the applicant/appellant and further without any reasonable cause deserted the applicant/appellant and went to her parental home at Rewa, after threatening the applicant/appellant in the aforesaid manner. Thus, the respondent-wife has deserted the applicant/appellant for a period of over two years and has deprived him of marital rights. Additionally, it is alleged that the marriage between the applicant/appellant and respondent-wife has broken irretrievably and there is no possibility of reconciiiation between them. ( 6. ) RESPONDENT-WIFE submitted her written statement refuting thereby the allegations made by the applicant / appellant. It was denied that the father of respondent was engaged in the business of contractorship. It was equally denied that the respondent was holdipg the post of Development Officer in Bajaj alliance or Manager Human Resources in J. P. Cement, Rewa. Allegations were made with ulterior motive of avoiding the liability of maintenance. It was stated in specific that the marriage was performed because the applicant/appellant was holding the post of Officer in Indian Army and it was never insisted by the respondent that the applicant/appellant shall leave the job. Other allegations about threatening of suicide, etc. were also denied. It was further denied that the respondent had ever humiliated the applicant/appellant. On the contrary, it was stated in the written statement that the respondent had performed all the functions of dutiful wife till 14. 06. 2006. In additional plea, it was alleged that the father of respondent-wife gave jewellery of worth Rs. 2 lacs, other materials of Rs. 2 lacs, clothes of Rs. 75,000/-, cash of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Motor Car worth Rs. 4. 5 lacs and utensils of about Rs. 5 0. 000/- at the time of marriage which have been retained by the applicant/appellant. This apart, dress and other materials of about Rs. 2 lacs, other materials of Rs. 2 lacs, clothes of Rs. 75,000/-, cash of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Motor Car worth Rs. 4. 5 lacs and utensils of about Rs. 5 0. 000/- at the time of marriage which have been retained by the applicant/appellant. This apart, dress and other materials of about Rs. one lac was also given to the applicant/appellants parents and other family members which, too, have been retained by him. It was further pleaded in specific that the applicant/appellants parents started construction of house at Satna about a month before the day of marriage. Construction was incomplete for want of money. After marriage, the mother of the applicant/appellant insisted the respondent to tiring Rs. 2 lacs as additional dowry which was not accepted by the respondent. Applicant/appellant further, therefore, started abusing the respondent-wife and used to pick up quarrels with her. Marriage between the applicant/appellant and respondent-wife was performed on mediation/negotiations of one Shri Ram pavitra Pandey who discussed the matter with the parents of the applicant / appellant. He was also insulted and humiliated by the family members of the applicant/appellant. Applicant/appellant had availed leave in the 2"d week of january, 2006. He had gone to Satna during his leave, at that time, respondent-wife was at Rewa. Applicant/appellant on 14. 06. 2006 came to Rewa. He stayed with respondent-wife for a while and maintained physical relations with her and went back to his service place. ( 7. ) APPLICANT/appellant examined himself alone in evidence whereas respondent has examined herself as (DW-I), Laxman Prasad Dwivedi (DW-2), ram Pavitra Pandey (DW-3) and Smt. Gayatri Tiwari (DW-4 ). Both the parties have also produced- documentary evidence. In the light of evidence, learned trial judge vide order dated 31. 10. 2007 dismissed the divorce petition. Hence, the present appeal. ( 8. ) SHRI Ravendra Shukla and Shri J. K. Verma, learned counsel for the parties made their submissions which have been considered in the light of the material on record. ( 9. ) IT is contended on behalf of the applicant/appellant that the grounds of cruelty and desertion have been duly proved by the evidence on record and the learned trial judge has committed an error while appreciating it. ( 10. ) WE have perused the pleadings as well as evidence on recor ( 11. ( 9. ) IT is contended on behalf of the applicant/appellant that the grounds of cruelty and desertion have been duly proved by the evidence on record and the learned trial judge has committed an error while appreciating it. ( 10. ) WE have perused the pleadings as well as evidence on recor ( 11. ) ACCORDING to the applicant/appellant, he was treated with cruelty by the respondent in the sense that he was unduly pressurized that he shall leave the jot and join business of contractorship with the father of the respondent. ( 12. ) ON perusal, it is found that the applicant/appellant has not placed an iota on record to establish that the father of the respondent was engaged in the business of contractor. His registration as contractor was not placed on record. Particulars of his registration as contractor are also not produced / proved. Applicant/appellant has not furnished details of sites or copies of work orders to establish that the respondents father was in fact engaged in the business of contractorship. This being so, learned trial judge has rightly concluded that it was not probable that the respondent would insist her husband-applicant/appellant to leave a well salaried / well reputed permanent job of Indian Army. ( 13. ) APPLICANT/appellant has pleaded that he was humiliated by the respondent in the presence of his colleagues. No such colleague has been examined in the court. Thus, the allegation of humiliation has not been established on record. ( 14. ) AS regards, allegations of threatening of suicide and of implicating the applicant/appellant and his family members in a criminal case, it is suffice to say that the same has not been found proved by the learned trial judge on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence on record. Not a single witness has been examined for corroboration of even such bald allegations. Cruelty in order to enable the parties to seek divorce on this ground may be physical or mental. We are not here concerned with physical cruelty, since, the applicant/appellant has not so pleaded. At the most it may be stated by the applicant/appellant to be a case of mental cruelty. "mental Cruelty" is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act and perhaps cannot be defined in comprehensive manner as observed by Hon ble the supreme Court of India in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. At the most it may be stated by the applicant/appellant to be a case of mental cruelty. "mental Cruelty" is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act and perhaps cannot be defined in comprehensive manner as observed by Hon ble the supreme Court of India in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 511. Supreme Court has observed :- "98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we, have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behavior is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behavior in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; if is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modem culture through print and electronic media and value system etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any strait-jacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty \ The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) on consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters- of mental cruelty. (i) on consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters- of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes un happiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, ii shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. Applying the aforesaid yardsticks, we find that the ingredients of cruelty within the aforesaid meaning are not established in the instant case and the applicant/appellant having failed to provide foundation for the ground of cruelty is not entitled to seek divorce on this ground. Though the applicant/appellant has also sought divorce on the ground of desertion, he is found to have failed in establishing that the respondent has deserted him since, 14. 06. 2006. ( 15. ) IN paragraph 14 of statement of applicant/appellant, he admitted that the respondent resided with him up to December, 2003. He was posted at Leh (J and K)from January, 2004 to June, 2005. He stated on oath that the respondent did not join him because she was to appear in the examination of MBA which was to be held in the month of May/june. Applicant/appellant did not visit the parental house of respondent-wife to bring her back He did not make any effort to call her back to matrimonial home. ( 16. He stated on oath that the respondent did not join him because she was to appear in the examination of MBA which was to be held in the month of May/june. Applicant/appellant did not visit the parental house of respondent-wife to bring her back He did not make any effort to call her back to matrimonial home. ( 16. ) CLAUSE (i-b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act enables the applicant/appellant to seek divorce, if other party has deserted for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Explanation with this provision reads as under :- "13. Divorce- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-0 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i-a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Explanation:- In this sub-section, the expression "desertion" means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. " ( 17. ) IT is settled position of law as reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lachman Uttamchand Kirpalani Vs. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 supreme Court 40 that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that others consent, and without reasonable cause. " ( 17. ) IT is settled position of law as reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lachman Uttamchand Kirpalani Vs. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 supreme Court 40 that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that others consent, and without reasonable cause. For the offence of desertion so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there (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. ( 18. ) LEARNED trial judge has held that it has not been proved by the applicant / appellant that the respondent-wife had deserted him for a period of two years or more without reasonable cause. Respondent has examined her mother Smt. Gayatri tiwari (DW-4 ). Ram Pavitra Pandey who was mediator in the marriage has also been examined who has supported the contents of the written statement. After appreciating the entire material on record, learned trial judge has found that the alleged desertion, within the meaning of section 13 (l) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act was not caused by the respondent and instead she herself was humiliated by the applicant/appellant and his family members. This finding is not shown to have been vitiated on any account. Considering the aforesaid, it was rightly held by the learned trial judge that the ground of desertion has also not been established. ( 19. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant/appellant has been unable to demonstrate consideration of any inadmissible evidence or non-consideration of any material admissible piece of evidence. This being so, there is no scope of interference in the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in respect of alleged desertion. ( 20. ) LASTLY, it is contended that it being a case of broken marriage, parties should be relieved by passing a decree of divorce. Looking to the material on record, it is a highly misconceived submission. This being so, there is no scope of interference in the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in respect of alleged desertion. ( 20. ) LASTLY, it is contended that it being a case of broken marriage, parties should be relieved by passing a decree of divorce. Looking to the material on record, it is a highly misconceived submission. Provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 195 5 do not provide for divorce merely on the ground of broken marriage, independent of subsection (1), (I-A) or (2) of section 13 of the said Act. A person seeking divorce is under an obligation to prove any of the grounds enumerated in law. If any of the grounds is proved, the fact that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken provides additional support to the grant of decree of divorce. In the present case, desertion for the purpose of ground under section 13 (1) (i-b) is not found to have hem established. Non-applicant/respondent was to appear in the examination of MBA and was therefore residing with her parents as admitted by the applicant / appellant himself. It did not amount to irretrievably broken marriage or separate living without any reasonable cause and cannot be. further termed as causing mental cruelty. ( 21. ) IN the result, we do not find any force in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appellant shall bear the cost of litigation of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 5. 000/-, if already certified. Appeal dismissed.