JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been filed by the wife, who was respondent before the learned trial Court, against the judgment and decree of the learned Court dissolving the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce on the proved allegations u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent-husband instituted the petition out of which this appeal arises on the pleadings that the parties were married according to Hindu customs, rites and rituals on 30.4.2002. After solemnization of their marriage, the appellant resided with the respondent (husband, petitioner before the learned trial Court) as husband and wife at their matrimonial home for a period of more than one year. In between she was visiting her parents frequently. The respondent pleaded that there was no cohabitation between the parties and the marriage had not been consummated. She did not perform her matrimonial obligations, was not well versed in household chores and refused to attend her duties as a wife. She did not cook food and when asked to do so she acted oblivious of what had been asked from her. The respondent was compelled to arrange separate accommodation for himself and the appellant. Here again, she did not attend to the household affairs by saying that she wanted to clear her B.Ed, examination. On 5.5.2003 she left the matrimonial home accompanied by her father. She probably went to Gauhati (Assam). Her conduct towards the petitioner was indifferent, cruel and irresponsible. She did not permit the respondent to approach her to consummate the marriage. She often proclaimed that she would implicate the respondent and his family members in criminal cases. The respondent claimed that she had left the matrimonial home with the intention to put an end to the relationship permanently. 2. The appellant resisted the petition stating that she had cohabited with the respondent for three years, dutifully performed her matrimonial obligations. The marriage between the parties was consummated, but it was the members of the family of the respondent who were treating her with cruelty, often taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. It was the respondent who compelled her to reside separately in rented accommodation, for the reasons that he had created conditions which vitiated the atmosphere in the matrimonial home. 3. Learned trial Court, on the evidence on record, decreed the claim of the respondent herein. It was the respondent who compelled her to reside separately in rented accommodation, for the reasons that he had created conditions which vitiated the atmosphere in the matrimonial home. 3. Learned trial Court, on the evidence on record, decreed the claim of the respondent herein. In order to arrive at its findings, the learned Court considered the statement of PW-1 Virender Katoch, petitioner, who has stated that after his marriage the respondent had resided with him for about one year, did not permit him to have sexual intercourse; she was not well versed in household work; she was indifferent to the petitioner and the members of his family, she would leave the house at her whim and pleasure went to Gauhati purportedly to study for her B.Ed, exams without taking his permission. She did not return to the matrimonial home even though she was requested to do so. The marriage between the parties had completely broken down. On 9.10.2003 the petitioner had issued notice Ex. PW-1/A attributing acts of cruelty to her. 4. PW-2 Shri Amar Singh, father of the respondent, stated that appellant was not well versed with the household work, could not prepare food for the family and had forced the petitioner to maintain a separate residence. 5. PW-3 Shri Charan Dass stated that the respondent had taken a house on rent near his house. The respondent and the appellant had stayed in his house for sometime. She was unable to perform any household chores, duties and in these circumstances it was the respondent himself who was performing these jobs. She used to compel the respondent to take her to her parents' house. 6. As against this, the appellant has appeared as RW-1 stating that for about 15 days after the marriage she was treated well thereafter she was maltreated and dowry demands etc. were made. She was compelled to reside separately. She was emphatic that the marriage between the parties had been consummated. This evidence was supported by RW-2 Shri Santosh Kumar, father of the appellant. RW-3, Avtar Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, stated that he had intervened at one point of time to reconcile the differences between the parties. 7. On the evidence, the learned Court holds that the allegations of harassment levelled by the appellant were not established, there was no dowry demand proved on the record. These allegations were false. 8. RW-3, Avtar Singh, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, stated that he had intervened at one point of time to reconcile the differences between the parties. 7. On the evidence, the learned Court holds that the allegations of harassment levelled by the appellant were not established, there was no dowry demand proved on the record. These allegations were false. 8. Before adverting to the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties, what I find is that the appellant was served by way of publication in the trial Court as it was pleaded that she was deliberately avoiding service and on recording of ex-parte evidence, the case of the respondent was decreed ex-parte on 21.12.2004. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte proceedings was filed by the appellant on the allegations that she had not been served and infact she was staying in Assam in connection with her studies. She had also been turned out of her matrimonial home in 2003 for which police report etc. was filed. This application was opposed, but ultimately allowed by the Court on 15.9.2007 i.e. three years after it was instituted on 18.2.2005. One of the grounds urged in the application was that there was no proper service because at that particular point of time she had gone to study in Assam. I also note at this juncture that there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was infact studying for B.Ed, in Assam or had undertaken any course of studies there. This fact could very well be established by production of any documentary evidence in the nature of admission slips, payments of fee and diploma/mark sheets etc. awarded by the Gauhati University/College/Institute. It is on these facts that this Court is called upon to judge the legality of the judgment and decree of the Court below. 9. The grounds, which were taken by the respondent for dissolution of the marriage, are; (a) that he was treated with cruelty since the appellant did not allow her sexual access, (b) that she had withdrawn from his company without any reasonable cause and was levelling false allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry etc., against the entire family, (c) threats to implicate the entire family in criminal cases. These grounds were not established on the record. These grounds were not established on the record. Concept of cruelty, though not defined either in the Act or in the law, has been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 . After an extensive review of the case law both Indian and Foreign the Supreme Court holds:- 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet it is deemed 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. (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 jealously, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealously, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness 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 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, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty". (pp. 546-547) 10. These principles were reaffirmed in Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur, (2009) 1 SCC 422 . In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce passed by the Additional District Judge confirmed by the High Court. The brief facts as noticed by the Supreme Court were that the parties were married in 1984. They were childhood friends acquainted with each other since 1966. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce passed by the Additional District Judge confirmed by the High Court. The brief facts as noticed by the Supreme Court were that the parties were married in 1984. They were childhood friends acquainted with each other since 1966. They studied in the same school and friendship ultimately matured into marriage. It is an inter-caste marriage which was at first resisted by the parents but lateron they relented and consented. There was no child from the wedlock. 11. The wife had a brilliant academic record and had been the recipient of the prestigious Lalor Foundation Fellowship of United States of America (USA) and employed in the Department of Biochemistry in the AD India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) where she was pursuing studies for award of Ph.D. She pleaded that though she was well placed in life but due to the complaint from her husband she left the job and joined him in Bombay. In 1988 both the parties left for the United States of America where she was awarded the Lalor Foundation Fellowship for which she had to stay in Kansas City and could not join her husband. 12. The husband had contended that since the solemnization of the marriage, the attitude, conduct and behaviour of the wife towards him and his parents was rough, humiliating them on every possible occasion. He was not informed by her about the miscarriage etc. and denied all the joy and feeling of fatherhood. The facts are noticed by me only in brief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the principles governing cruelty holds:- 34. In Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan Vs. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 250 , this Court stated that the concept of legal cruelty changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. It was further stated that to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous cessation of marital intercourse or total indifference on the part of the husband towards marital obligations would lead to legal cruelty. 35. In Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 , this Court examined the concept of cruelty. It was observed that the term 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Continuous cessation of marital intercourse or total indifference on the part of the husband towards marital obligations would lead to legal cruelty. 35. In Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 , this Court examined the concept of cruelty. It was observed that the term 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act in the context of human conduct and behavior in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other spouse. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of degree which is relevant. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the other spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 36. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Mens rea is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment. (pp. 431-432) After laying down the principles the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the wife. 13. Before considering the evidence of the parties in the present case, the pleadings may be noticed. The respondent, petitioner before the trial Court, pleads that the marriage was never consummated, the appellant lived with him only for about two months where-after she left the matrimonial home. She never performed household duties, never responded to any communication etc. 13. Before considering the evidence of the parties in the present case, the pleadings may be noticed. The respondent, petitioner before the trial Court, pleads that the marriage was never consummated, the appellant lived with him only for about two months where-after she left the matrimonial home. She never performed household duties, never responded to any communication etc. but rather it was very difficult to talk to her, respondent was made to live separately in rented accommodation, she did not cohabit with him and fulfill her matrimonial obligations. On 5.5.2003 she left her matrimonial home with her father on the pretext that she was going to appear in B.Ed, examination in Gauhati, but did not return thereafter. She was indifferent towards household work, she threatened to implicate his family in criminal cases. Notice detailing these acts was also served on her. 14. In reply, to the specific allegations made the denial is general. The appellant states that the marriage was consummated when she lived together continuously with the respondent for three years. All other submissions are denied as being a figment of the imagination of the respondent. These pleadings have been noted in some detail because they will be relevant to appreciate the evidence of the parties. 15. The respondent proved on record Ex. PW-1/A, notice dated 9th October, 2003, addressed to the appellant as also on the address of her father. Evidence in this case was recorded by the learned Court on 8.1.2007 whereafter ex-parte proceedings against the appellant set aside and the case proceeded further. 16. While adverting to the evidence of the parties, I note that the appellant admits that she had taken admission in B.Ed, in Gauhati/Assam but has not produced any document on the record. She then states that she took admission in this course in 2003 because she was forced by the respondent to take up a job. She failed in the examination and then she again went back and studied at Gauhati for about a year. It is not proved as to in which College/Institution she took admission, how often she visited Gauhati and where she stayed during her studies. She returned after this period but was not allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. 17. RW-3 Avtar Singh, Ex. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bela, says that the respondent is resident of his village. It is not proved as to in which College/Institution she took admission, how often she visited Gauhati and where she stayed during her studies. She returned after this period but was not allowed to stay in the matrimonial home. 17. RW-3 Avtar Singh, Ex. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bela, says that the respondent is resident of his village. He was informed by the father of the appellant that there was some dispute in the matrimonial affairs of the parties and in these circumstances he should intervene and sort out the matter. It is in the totality of these circumstances that the evidence of both the parties to be considered. In so far as the first allegation is concerned, that is consummation of marriage; the best evidence would be that of the parties. This is but stating the obvious. Of-course, when there is a denial, allegations and counter allegations on this aspect, expert medical evidence could also be called for to establish the fact as to which party is speaking the truth. I would be adverting to this aspect and the conclusion of the judgment, but before that what I find is that the learned District Judge has rightly held that the appellant has deserted the respondent and that she made no effort or attempt to return to her matrimonial home. The fact that the appellant went away to Assam to complete the B.Ed. course about which no proof has been placed on the record but from the fact, which has been admitted by the parties, what I find is that there is no evidence on the record to establish that she had infact informed the respondent about this and had gone there with his consent. As noticed by me that there is no evidence to show that the Institute/College where she had undertaken the course of studies or where she was enrolled as a correspondence candidate. Any proof of payment of fees, allotment of roll number, proof of admission or any correspondence with the University/Institution/College asking her to attend a particular number of lectures or to attend the examination, to appear on a particular date(s) has not been produced. For one full year stayed in Gauhati; but where and with whom is not proved. It is in these circumstances that the factum of withdrawing from the company of the respondent i.e. animus deserendi is writ large. For one full year stayed in Gauhati; but where and with whom is not proved. It is in these circumstances that the factum of withdrawing from the company of the respondent i.e. animus deserendi is writ large. What is established in the statement is that she has been away from her matrimonial home for one full year. There is no evidence on record that after this period she actually joined the company of her husband in the matrimonial home. I also find from the evidence on record that she has made wild and reckless allegations against the petitioner and his family members about harassment for not bringing sufficient dowry and also of her being forced to stay away from the matrimonial home at the instance of the family members of the respondent. What I also find is that PW-3 Shri Charan Dass stated in no unclear terms that he had rented the room where both the appellant and respondent stayed. 18. In these circumstances, there is no doubt in my mind and it is clear from the evidence on record that the appellant never put an end to the state of her withdrawal from the company of the respondent. Adverting to the first aspect, I find that in the totality of the circumstances, the evidence on behalf of the respondent can be relied upon for the reasons that narration of the events and state of affairs is natural. 19. In Raman Kumar Vs. Smt. Baksho Thandi, AIR 2008 P&H 95 the Court holds:- 10. It can be seen that relationship between the appellant and his wife were not normal. They have stayed together for a very short duration. The allegation is that wife has not allowed the appellant to have a normal sexual relationship. The appellant may not have been wise enough to make clear averment in this regard. It would appear that he obviously meant to convey that he was denied normal sexual relationship by his wife when he averred that he was not permitted to cohabit marriage. The allegation is that wife has not allowed the appellant to have a normal sexual relationship with her. This aspect perhaps would have come out clearly if the wife had further participated to support her stand and had faced cross-examination. The appellant is done (sic) by the word "cohabit" instead of clearly saying that he was not allowed to consummate marriage. This aspect perhaps would have come out clearly if the wife had further participated to support her stand and had faced cross-examination. The appellant is done (sic) by the word "cohabit" instead of clearly saying that he was not allowed to consummate marriage. This may not require any elaborate or further discussion in factual background of this case. The wife is still not interested in contesting the appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the wife, on receipt of instructions from the attorney of respondent-wife, would say that even respondent-wife is not keen to continue with this relationship and accordingly had not participated to contest this divorce petition before the trial Court after filing reply. There is, thus, no use to pend this appeal and make the parties to live with this broken relationship awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The plea of the appellant that the respondent-wife did not allow him to cohabit marriage, cannot be read to assign a meaning that plea of denial of sexual relationship is not made. The overall behaviour of the wife which has been established by the unrebutted evidence of the appellant would go to show mental cruelty on her part towards the husband. Since the wife has not come forward to contest the appeal and also did not seriously contest the divorce petition, the plea of the appellant to not negatived from the evidence and material on record. (p.98) 20. The fact that the appellant has not placed anything on the record to show that (a) absence from the matrimonial home was necessitated by the consent of the respondent for the reason that she wanted to pursue higher studies in Gauhati and that (b) there is no documentary evidence on the record to show that she had taken admission in any College/Institution whether as a regular or a correspondence student, evidence to show that where she stayed in Gauhati, leads to this conclusion that absence was unjustified. On the aspect that the marriage was not consummated, all that I need say is that withdrawal from the society of the respondent herein for a long period of time without giving him an opportunity of living in conjugal bliss is itself established in the circumstances. Obviously if she was in Gauhati, there would be no question of both of them living together or having access to each other. Obviously if she was in Gauhati, there would be no question of both of them living together or having access to each other. I do not find any fault with the reasoning of the learned District Judge when he concluded that the matrimonial relationship between the parties has been defacto put to an end. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.