JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the District Judge, Dungarpur in Misc. Civil Case No.23/2009, whereby the application filed by the respondent- Husband under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage has been accepted and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 11.3.2007 has been ordered to be dissolved. 2. The brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act on 2.4.2009, inter-alia with the averments that the marriage between the respondent and appellant was solemnized on 11.3.2007 and on the first night of the marriage, the wife refused marital cohabitation (sexual intercourse) and told the respondent that her parents have married her against her will to him, she does not like him and would never accept him as husband, from the date of marriage to the date of application, there has been no marital cohabitation between the parties, after the marriage, the wife stayed in the matrimonial home for very short period and would leave for her parents' house for one reason or the other and would not return back from 15-20 days and from after five months of the marriage, she has stayed at her parents home. It was claimed that on SHITLA SAPTMI, the appellant went to her parents' home and returned back with her younger brother and told her that now she would stay with her parents and went back to her parents' home, the respondent informed his parents regarding the fact of lack of marital cohabitation and mental cruelty by the appellant, when they went to appellant's home and told them about lack of marital cohabitation and mental cruelty. However, no attention was paid to the same and they refused to send back the appellant. 3. It was further claimed that various efforts were made to convince the appellant to return back to the matrimonial home which she declined, certain relatives were also sent to her place then also the appellant refused to return back. Once, she returned back and continued to behave in the same earlier fashion and after two days, she took all her goods, jewelery etc. and left the matrimonial home. Once, she returned back and continued to behave in the same earlier fashion and after two days, she took all her goods, jewelery etc. and left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, a proposal was given by the family of the appellant that the couple must stay separately from the parents and therefore, a house on rent was taken and they started living in the said house. However, after spending three days at the said rented house, she again left for her parental home and several efforts made thereafter also failed. Ultimately, it was prayed that the marriage between the parties be dissolved. 4. A reply to the petition was filed by the appellant and the averments made in the petition were denied and it was claimed that few days after the marriage, the respondent started demanding dowry and she remained with the respondent for six months as wife and never refused marital cohabitation. However, in-greed of dowry, she was turned out of the matrimonial home and till such time she remained at matrimonial home, there was marital cohabitation as well. The averments relating to the efforts made by the respondent to bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home were all denied. Ultimately, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. The trial court framed three issues. While issue No.1 related to the allegations made by the respondent regarding refusal for marital cohabitation and mental cruelty, issue No.2 related to the claim of the appellant about demand of dowry and turning her out of the matrimonial home. 6. On behalf of the respondent, four witnesses including the respondent were examined and on behalf of the appellant witnesses including the appellant herself were examined. 7. The trial court after hearing the parties and after analysising the oral evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent made all efforts to keep appellant in the matrimonial home, however, the appellant-wife refused and the denial of marital cohabitation was also held proved and the plea of the appellant regarding demand of dowry was held to be baseless. The Court came to the conclusion that denial of marital cohabitation between the married persons amount to cruelty and in such circumstances, it would not be justified to keep such husband and wife together and ordered for dissolution of marriage as noticed herein before. 8. The Court came to the conclusion that denial of marital cohabitation between the married persons amount to cruelty and in such circumstances, it would not be justified to keep such husband and wife together and ordered for dissolution of marriage as noticed herein before. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had clearly stated in her written statement and in her oral testimony that while she was at the matrimonial home, there was marital cohabitation between the parties and there was no material available on record for the trial court to come to a different conclusion. It was further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the appellant was ill-treated by the respondent and his family members and dowry was demanded and that was the only reason for her leaving the matrimonial home and the respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It is prayed that the order and decree passed by the trial court be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and the findings impugned. It was submitted that from the material available on record, the fact of denial of marital cohabitation is well proved, which amounts to mental cruelty and consequently, the trial court was justified in ordering dissolution of marriage. It was submitted that the allegations about illtreatment and demand of dowry was without any basis which is apparent from the evidence of the parties and therefore, there is no substance in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 11. The respondent-husband has alleged that the appellant committed mental cruelty towards him. Cruelty is not defined under the Act. The Apex Court has explained the concept of cruelty in the matter of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 as under:- "47. The word "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. 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 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. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and perse 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. Intention 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 willful ill-treatment. 50. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 , this Court had occasion to examine the concept of 'mental cruelty'. This Court observed as under:- "16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made." 55. This Court, in the case of Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 "21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1) (i-a) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other." 12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan and Anr., (1982) 1 SCR 695 has held that the concept of legal cruelty changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. It was further held 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. 13. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan (supra) regarding continuous cessation of marital intercourse and total indifference on the part of husband towards marital obligations would lead to legal cruelty would as much apply to cessation of marital intercourse or total indifference on the part of the wife towards marital obligations as well. 14. In the present case, it was the specific case of the respondent-husband that he was denied physical relation by the wife from day one of the marriage and she continued to misbehave with him and denied physical relation through out the period, they stayed together, which period was also intermittent, inasmuch as, the appellant continued to leave the matrimonial home and stay back at her parents' home most of the time. The appellant disputed the allegations about denial of physical relation and made counter allegations about ill-treatment and demand of dowry. The respondent in his statement as AW-1 reiterated the averments made in the petition and the fact that his parents informed appellant's parents about lack of physical relationship, which aspect was not adverted to by her parents and repeated attempts made by him to ensure that the appellant stays with him including taking a separate residence failed. In the cross-examination of the respondent, nothing material could be brought on record. 15. In the cross-examination of the respondent, nothing material could be brought on record. 15. AW-2 Jayvanti, mother of the respondent again supported the claim made by the respondent and the fact of their indicating it to the parents of the appellant was reiterated. Keshavlal, uncle of the respondent was examined as AW-3, who also supported the claim made by the respondent and the efforts made for bringing the appellant back to the matrimonial home. Dilip Sharma AW-4 maternal uncle of the respondent also gave similar statements. 16. The appellant who was examined as NAW-1 claimed in her statement that physical relationship was established between the parties and allegations were made regarding demand of dowry. In the cross-examination, she stated that Nilesh made false complaint regarding physical relationship to their families. Generally, various efforts alleged by the respondent in the petition to bring the appellant back to matrimonial home were admitted. 17. The crucial statement in the present case is that of NAW-2 Smt. Savita, mother of the appellant-wife Smt. Roma, who while in examination-in-chief made allegations about demand of dowry and alleged that no effort was made for return of the appellant back to matrimonial home, in the cross-examination, she stated that there was no demand of dowry and she also admitted that she was informed about denial of physical relationship by mother of the respondent after about six months, which she informed to her husband and they tried to make Roma understand to which Roma stated that she cannot do that. The relevant portion of the cross-examination reads thus:- " jksek 6 ekg llqjky jgh rks bl nkSjku 8 fnu esa ,d ckj vius ifr ds lkFk gekjsa ;gkWa vkrh FkhA eSa o fuys'k dh ekWa vkil esa fj'rsnkj gSaA 'kknh ls igys rhu lky rd jksek o fuys'k dh lxkbZ pyh FkhA 'kknh ls igys ngst dh dksbZ ekWax ugha dh FkhA 'kknh djus vk;s rc Hkh fdlh izdkj dh ngst dh ekax ugha dh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd esjs :c: eq>ls Hkh dHkh nht dh ekWax fuys'k ds ifjokj okyksa us ugha dhA ;g lgh gS fd gekjs lekt esa ngst ugha pyrk gSA 'kknh ds ckn igyh ckj jksek rhljs fnu gekjs ?kj ij vk;h FkhA ml le; djhc 70 yksx gekjs ;gkWa [kkus ij vk;s FksA ;g lgh gS fd jksek lkseokj dk ozr djrh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd 'khryk lIreh ds fnu lkseokj dks jksek gekjs ?kj ij vk;h gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd oks fuys'k dh ckbd ls QkSt dk cMyk mrj xbZ gks vkSj okil fuys'k ds lkFk ugh xbZ gksA xokg us dgk fd og gekjs ?kj vk;h gh ugha FkhA 'kknh ds 6 ekg jksek dh lkl us gesa f'kdk;r dh Fkh fd jksek ?kj dk dke ugha djrh gS rks eSaus jksek ls iwNrkN dh FkhA jksek o fuys'k ds chp ifr&iRuh ds laca/k ugha cus ;g ckr eq>s jksek dh lkl us vkdj crk;h FkhA mDr ckr eq>s 6 ekg ckn crk;h FkhA eSaus ;g ckr esjs ifr dks Hkh rqjUr crk;h FkhA eSus o esjs ifr us jksek dks le>k;k vkSj jksek us dgk fd ,slk ugha gks ldrk gSaA jksek dks vkSj fdlh fj'rsnkj u ugha le>k;k Fkk geus gh mls le>k;k FkkA " 18. Besides the above, the said witness admitted the efforts made by the respondent to bring back the appellant to his matrimonial home. NAW-3 Natwar Lal, father of the appellant denied about the fact that respondent's mother had any conversation with his wife about denial of physical relationship and made allegations about ill-treatment to his daughter. 19. Besides the above, the said witness admitted the efforts made by the respondent to bring back the appellant to his matrimonial home. NAW-3 Natwar Lal, father of the appellant denied about the fact that respondent's mother had any conversation with his wife about denial of physical relationship and made allegations about ill-treatment to his daughter. 19. From an over all analysis of the pleadings of the parties and the oral evidence led, it is apparent that after making efforts from about 5-6 months to convince the respondent regarding matrimonial obligations, when on Shitla Saptmi, the appellant firmly denied returning back to the matrimonial home, the respondent informed his parents about denial of physical relationship by the appellant and the parents talked / informed the parents of the appellant and when mother of the appellant talked to her about the said aspect. From the statement quoted above, it is clear that not only there was admission by the appellant-wife of the said position, but there was also a firm refusal to fulfil the marital obligation. The effort made by the respondent and his family to bring back the appellant to the matrimonial home are writ large on the record of the case, inasmuch as, the same is supported not only by the respondent and his witnesses, but the appellant and her witnesses as well though of-course what transpired / what led to such efforts, the version appears to be different. The plea raised by the appellant in her written statement about ill-treatment on account of demand for dowry is clearly negated from the cross-examination of NAW-2 mother of the appellant (as quoted above). 20. In view of the above, it is apparent that the appellant has denied physical relationship (marital cohabitation) to the respondent and had repeatedly left the matrimonial home for no apparent reason and the allegations about demand of dowry are not correct. 21. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Smt. Arati Mondal v. Bhupati Mondal, AIR 2009 Calcutta 200 has held that act of deprivation of conjugal right on the part of a wife towards her husband is the worst form of cruelty a wife can inflict upon her husband. 22. 21. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Smt. Arati Mondal v. Bhupati Mondal, AIR 2009 Calcutta 200 has held that act of deprivation of conjugal right on the part of a wife towards her husband is the worst form of cruelty a wife can inflict upon her husband. 22. Similarly, Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohini chawla v. Subhash Chander Chawla, AIR 2009 P&H 33 has held that no sexual activity between the parties would amount to mental as well as physical cruelty to the husband. 23. From what has been considered here-in-above, it is apparent that the appellant-wife had committed mental cruelty towards the respondent-husband and therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court does not call for any interference. 24. Accordingly, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******