ORDER 1. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-91992 passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 129-A/91 whereby and where under application for divorce preferred by the appellant under Section 13 (1)(i -a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (briefly, 'Act') has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that parties to the proceedings were married as per Hindu rites on 1-5-1982. They lived together upto 30-4-1987 and since thereafter they are living separately. 2. According to the plaintiff, the respondent never allowed him to have marital intercourse. Earlier the appellant got examined her by doctor, but she was medically found fit. She refused for marital intercourse without any reasonable and probable cause throughout and also ill treated his family members. In November, 1982, she made unsuccessful attempt of running away from the matrimonial home. Once she tried to jump into the well and was rescued with the help of villagers. She then went Raigarh with her maternal aunt and thereafter she was living with her father. She confessed her guilt before village panchayat and executed an agreement of confession therefore, the appellant brought her back to matrimonial home where she lived for 4 months but her behaviour remained unchanged. Still she was not allowing the appellant to keep matrimonial relations with her. In this way, the respondent's behaviour 'with the appellant is very cruel and there was no option for the appellant but to apply for divorce. 3. The respondent filed her written statement and denied the allegation and pleaded that she never refused to keep matrimonial relations. She never ill-treated the appellant's family members. She used to do every work in the matrimonial home. It is the appellant who does not want to live with her because the respondent is villager and also uneducated. However, she had admitted in her written statement that due to intervention of village panchayat, the appellant brought her back to matrimonial home. 4. Issues were framed by the trial Court and parties led evidence. 5. Learned Court below on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove the ground taken in the petition and dismissed the petition. 6. 4. Issues were framed by the trial Court and parties led evidence. 5. Learned Court below on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove the ground taken in the petition and dismissed the petition. 6. Shri Verma, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Court below had erred in recording a finding that the appellant had failed to prove the ground taken in the said petition and thereby dismissing the petition. 7. Per contra, Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition and the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on appreciation of evidence and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be upheld. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and decree and record of the trial Court. 9. The existence of cruelty depends not on the magnitude but rather on the consequences of matrimonial offence of cruelty actual or apprehended. Personalities of the parties is an important element for the decision as to whether the status between the two spouses had been cruel. Cruelty as envisaged under the Act is not restricted to acts of physical violence and may extend to behaviour which may cause pain and injury to the mind as well as to render the continuance in matrimonial home an ordeal where it becomes impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. The expression "cruelty" as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act clearly admits in its ambit and scope such acts which may even cause mental agony to aggrieved party. Cruelty may result where the complaining spouse establishes his/her being treated with cruelty whether physical, mental, social or otherwise but the acts complained of must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marriage falling in the category of conscious acts cruel in nature as that is the underlying requirement of the provision. 10. The intention to be cruel is not an essential element of cruelty as envisaged under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. If bitter waters are flowing it is not necessary to enquire from which source they spring. 10. The intention to be cruel is not an essential element of cruelty as envisaged under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. If bitter waters are flowing it is not necessary to enquire from which source they spring. The intention or motive behind the cruelty has lost significance in the changed society and the social atmosphere of the present day. It is sufficient that if the cruelty is of the type which indicates that the relations between the spouses had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of one or the other that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony. In marital matters, the feelings and attitudes of minds are I material. 11. Test of cruelty to be inferred by any conduct of spouse in its ordinary and natural meaning. Cruelty is not defined specifically. It is Courts responsibility to interpret analysis and define it. The allegations of ill-treatment, abusing indulgence in undesired activities, neglect of matrimonial obligations and driving out the wife out of her matrimonial home by her husband is mental cruelty. Mental cruelty causes grievous injury and creates reasonable apprehension of unsafe. 12. It is settled position of law that refusal or voluntary acts, of a party to the marriage depriving the other of society and cohabitation or to have sexual intercourse for a long time amounts to cruelty. Failure to comply with one of the essential obligations of the marital life by the wife would amount to subjecting the husband to cruelty. The agreement Ex. P-1 filed in the case is an important piece of evidence by which the respondent confessed her default and promised to behave in a manner which wife/daughter-in-law is required to behave in a matrimonial home and on her promise and her father's promise at the instance of village panchayat, the appellant brought her back to matrimonial home. There she resided for 4 months. Behaviour of the respondent was not changed. This fact that no change was observed in the respondent's behaviour has been admitted by her in para 8 of her written statement. If that admission is read along with Ex. P-1, it would be clear that she does not want to cohabit with her husband i.e. the appellant. 13. I have gone through the pleadings of parties. In her written statement, she had not alleged anything against appellant or his family members. If that admission is read along with Ex. P-1, it would be clear that she does not want to cohabit with her husband i.e. the appellant. 13. I have gone through the pleadings of parties. In her written statement, she had not alleged anything against appellant or his family members. She had only said that she never denied marital relations with the appellant and never dissatisfied the appellant but nowhere it has been said that she in fact, had such relations with the appellant. She had admitted allegations leveled by the appellant upon her in confession agreement Ex. P-1. The appellant after her confession tried to reconcile with her and in furtherance, he brought her back to matrimonial home. But position remained unchanged and in view of above, it cannot be said that the appellant's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act is without merit. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence led and material placed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant has been able to prove persistent deliberate denial of respondent to have marital relationship with the appellant. 14. So far as the finding recorded by learned Tribunal that the above conduct of the respondent has been condoned by the appellant is concerned, the same is also sans merit. Mere effort on the part of a spouse to reconcile with his or her counter part does not amount to condo-nation. To constitute condo-nation, the forgiveness has to be followed by restoration and cohabitation. To constitute condo-nation, there must, therefore, be two things; forgiveness and restoration. As to what constitute forgiveness would apparently depend upon the facts of each case. Here in the present case, the appellant tried to reconcile with her with an intention to live with her and to lead happy married life, but even thereafter she did not allow him to intercourse and, therefore, no option left with the appellant but to leave her. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent's default has been condoned. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding recorded by the trial Court is not correct and the appellant has succeeded in establishing the ground of cruelty. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent's default has been condoned. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding recorded by the trial Court is not correct and the appellant has succeeded in establishing the ground of cruelty. Besides that, it is not in dispute that parties to the proceedings arc living separately since April, 1987 i.e. for about 23 years, for no fault of appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for decree of divorce. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of trial Court is set aside. The marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved by decree of divorce. 17. No order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.