JUDGMENT M.C. Garg, J. : - This judgment shall dispose of the present first appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby the appellant/husband has challenged the decree passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Biora, District Rajgarh, in HMA No. 14-A/2005 filed by the appellant-husband against his wife for dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty as well as adultery, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the parties were married according to the Hindu Rites at Biora on 11th December, 1988; out of the marriage, three children namely Ruchi Sahu, Pravin Sahu and Navin Sahu were borne. After the marriage, the parties lived together for a period of two years in joint family. In this period, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. Efforts made to reconcile differences failed. The respondent was not caring for the matrimonial relation between the parties. She even developed extra marital relation with other persons, even indulged in sexual intercourse with other persons and on account of that, the appellant suffered extreme mental cruelty. The appellant was also treated with utmost disrespect in his community. Efforts made by him for changing her behaviour were of no consequence. The respondent/wife served a notice upon the appellant on 5th of June, 2005 alleging that she was turned out of the house by levelling baseless allegations. In this circumstance, the appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage which suit was registered as HMA No. 14-A/ 2005. The said suit after recording the evidence of the parties has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 5th of February, 2008. It is against that judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. According to the appellant, the judgment of the Lower Court in having given findings that the appellant has not been able to prove the cruelty by the respondent on him is contrary to record. The evidence available on record categorically establishes that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. In this regard, the appellant examined number of witnesses who proved the case of the appellant. The evidence available on record categorically establishes that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. In this regard, the appellant examined number of witnesses who proved the case of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon his own statement as well as the statements given by Dinesh (P.W. 2), Madhosingh (P.W. 3), Pravin Sahu (P.W. 4), Khushilal (P.W. 5), Navin Sahu (P.W. 6), Ruchi Sahu (P.W. 7) on his behalf. He also relied upon the statement made by respondent where she admits her behaviour which tantamounts to living in adultery. It is, therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the total evidence which has come on record, the appellant was able to prove his case that the respondent was not only treating the appellant with cruelty, but was also living in adultery. 4. It is submitted that the evidence has come on record that on 4th of November, 2003 in the building belonging to Balseth, the respondent was found in compromising position with one Laxman. She was caught by Rambabu, brother of respondent in the room where they were indulging in the act of adultery. At that time, Khushilal, Punamchand, Dinesh Sahu were also present who appeared as witnesses and have supported the case of the appellant. It is, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has simply ignored the relevant evidence which came on record. 5. It is also submitted that as far as the respondent is concerned, she even annoyed her family members inasmuch as her brother and Bhabhi were also not happy with her behaviour and in fact left her on account of her adulterous behaviour. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire conduct of the respondent was such that she has to be held guilty of causing mental as well as physical cruelty upon the appellant and the judgment of the trial Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside and reversed. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment given by the 2nd Additional District Judge. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Lower Court XXX XXX XXX 7. The evidence which came on record as well as Exh. P-l which is the notice sent on behalf of the respondent to the appellant has also been considered by the learned Trial Judge. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Lower Court XXX XXX XXX 7. The evidence which came on record as well as Exh. P-l which is the notice sent on behalf of the respondent to the appellant has also been considered by the learned Trial Judge. In the said notice, allegations have been made by the respondent. It has been alleged by the respondent that the appellant was making false allegations that she was living with adultery. 8. The other witnesses examined, included the appellant, his brother Dinesh who appeared as P.W. 2 and son of the appellant namely Pravin Sahu, Navin Sahu and Ruchi Sahu as P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7; Khushilal who witnessed the incident of 4th of November, 2003. 9. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself and Madanlal Jain and Purushottam. 10. The trial Court has disbelieved the case of the appellant by simply disbelieving even the statement made by brother of the respondent as well as her own daughter. Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment are relevant which read as under : - XXX XXX XXX 11. The reasoning given by the trial Court in disbelieving the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses is hypothetical. The very fact that the brother of the respondent and daughter of the appellant have stated that the respondent was keeping questionable relationship with Laxman and the statement of Navin Sahu which is also disbelieved by the trial Court, the reasonings given are flimsy. The relevant observation made in Paras 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereunder : - XXX XXX XXX 12. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that a lady who is not living with her husband and stay in the house of someone else, will not care even to lock the door, because she is not afraid of anyone. The very fact that Laxman was found at the time of incident without pant and shirt with the respondent itself is sufficient to prove that his presence in the house of respondent at the relevant time was questionable. 13. It would also be appropriate to take note of the statement of other witnesses to understand the real meaning of their statements coupled with the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the respondent. 14. 13. It would also be appropriate to take note of the statement of other witnesses to understand the real meaning of their statements coupled with the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the respondent. 14. The first witness is the appellant who filed his affidavit by way of evidence. Relevant portion of his statement was part of examination-in-chief after tendering of the affidavit in particular Para 4 of his examination-in-chief. The same is reproduced hereunder :- XXX XXX 15. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the respondent was found along with Laxman in the house of Krushna Gadwal, after four hours missing from the house of the appellant and she had stated to the appellant that she would live along with Laxman as his wife. 16. It would be relevant to see his cross-examination on this point : - XXX XXX XXX 17. The aforesaid cross-examination does not show that the allegations made by the appellant in his statement about adulterous conduct of the respondent are denied; she has levelled allegations against the appellant of living with adultery with Maya Sahu, which is not her case. Moreover, making such allegations also amounts to infliction of cruelty upon the appellant. Now coming to the statement made by Dinesh (P.W. 2) who is the brother of the appellant who has filed an affidavit and in Para 3 thereof, he has stated : - XXX XXX XXX 18. His examination-in-chief also shows that the respondent was found in the company of Laxman in the house of Laxman after she was searched and at that time, she had stated that she wanted to live with Laxman as his wife. In the cross-examination, on the aspect that she was found alone with Laxman, there is no cross-examination. There is also no cross-examination that she stated about living with Laxman as his wife. 19. In the next affidavit, which has been filed by Madhosingh who has been examined on behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that : - 20. Pravin Sahu who was also examined as a witness in this case has deposed that : - XXX XXX XXX 21. Affidavit of Khushilal also establishes that on 4th of November, 2003. when search was made about the respondent, she was found inside the house along with Laxman alone and that her own brother Rambabu scolded her at that time. Pravin Sahu who was also examined as a witness in this case has deposed that : - XXX XXX XXX 21. Affidavit of Khushilal also establishes that on 4th of November, 2003. when search was made about the respondent, she was found inside the house along with Laxman alone and that her own brother Rambabu scolded her at that time. Navin Sahu who appeared as P.W. 6 has deposed that : - XXX XXX XXX 22. Nothing material which may discredit the testimony of witness has come in the cross-examination of the Witnesses conducted on behalf of the respondent. 23-24. Now coming to the statement of Ru6hi, daughter of the parties aged about 17 years, we found that in her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that : - XXX XXX XXX 25. Again in her cross-examination, nothing material which may discredit her testimony has been found. 26. On the other hand, coming to the statement made by respondent-Manjulata, we found about the incident that on 4th of November, when she was found with Laxman alone, she has not stated anything to deny those allegations. She has been cross-examined by the appellant on this issue wherein she admitted going to the house of Krushna Gadwal : - XXX XXX XXX 27. Considering the evidence, which has come on record, it can certainly be said that even if it is presumed that adultery has not been proved, the overall conduct of the respondent is such which comes within the definition of mental cruelty which is certainly a ground for dissolution of marriage within the meaning of section 13(l)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It would be appropriate to take note of the following judgments in this regard. 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in, the case of Chetan Das vs. Kamla Devi, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 250 , has observed that :- "Matrimonial matters •, are matters of delicate, human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of 'the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for' regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of 'irretrievably broken marriage' as a straitjacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case." In Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 , the Court stated as under :- "Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which cause, mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. 'Cruelty', therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner arid has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other." This Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619 , observed as under :- "The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. 'Cruelty' for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case." The mental cruelty has also been examined by this Court in Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 , at pp. 'Cruelty' for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case." The mental cruelty has also been examined by this Court in Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 , at pp. 716-17 (Para 21) which reads as under :- "Cruelty for the purpose of section 13(l)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which cause 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 behaviour or behavioural 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 misbehaviour 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;" In this case, the Court also stated that so many years have elapsed since the ipcwses parted company. In these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred del the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably. In A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , the Court observed as under :- "The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred del the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably. In A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , the Court observed as under :- "The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse, same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be 'grave and weighty' so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than 'ordinary wear and tear of married life'. The conduct taking into consideration, the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party." 29. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh delivered on 26th of March, 2007, discussed the concept of mental cruelty in the following words :- "The term 'mental cruelty' has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition, 2004) as under :- 'Mental Cruelty.- As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse'. The concept of cruelty has been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. The concept of cruelty has been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 13, 4th Edition Para 1269) as under:- 'The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The Court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits.' In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term 'mental cruelty' 'has been defined as under:- 'Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct towards one's spouse which causes embarrassmenty humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on-the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse'. In the instant case, our main endeavour would be to define broad parameters of the concept of 'mental cruelty'. In the instant case, our main endeavour would be to define broad parameters of the concept of 'mental cruelty'. Thereafter, we would strive to determine whether the instances of mental cruelty enumerated in this case by the appellant would cumulatively be adequate to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty according to the settled legal position as crystallised by a number of cases of this Court and other Courts." This Court has had an occasion to examine in detail the position of mental cruelty in N. G. Dastane vs. S. Dastane, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326 , at Page 337, Para 30 observed as under :- "The enquiry, therefore, has to be whether the conduct charges as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent." 30. The same judgment was relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was approved in later judgment delivered on 11th of December, 2012 in the case of U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas, in the following words :- "20. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, a three-Judge Bench, after dealing with the concept of mental cruelty, has observed thus :- '99......The human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the 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; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern 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 straitjacket 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 ....' 21. 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 straitjacket 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 ....' 21. In Ravi Kumar vs. Julmidevi, this Court has expressed thus :- 'In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of 'behaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a '^matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it ' may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty, Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety- it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words'. 22. Recently, this Court, in Vishwanath Agrawal s/o Sitaram Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, while dealing with the conception of cruelty, has stated that it has inseparably nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperament and emotions that have been conditioned by the social status. The two-Judge Bench referred to the decisions in Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan vs. Hafizunnisa Yasikhan Shobha Rani (supra), Sheldon vs. Sheldon V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat, Parveen Mehta (supra), Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit, Samar Ghosh (supra) and Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur, and opined that when the evidence brought on record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable, it would amount to mental cruelty. Emphasis was laid on the behavioural pattern of the wife whereby a dent is created in the reputation of the husband, regard being had to the fact that reputation is the salt of life. 23. In the case at hand, the husband has clearly deposed about the constant and consistent ill-treatment meted out to him by the wife inasmuch as she had shown her immense dislike to his 'sadhna' in music and had exhibited total indifference and, in a way, contempt to the tradition of teacher and disciple. It has graphically been demonstrated that she had not shown the slightest concern for the public image of her husband on many occasions by putting him in a situation of embarrassment leading to humiliation. She has made wild allegations about the conspiracy in the family of her husband to get him re-married for the greed of dowry and there is no iota of evidence on record to substantiate the same. This, in fact, is an aspersion not only on the character of the husband but also a maladroit effort to malign the reputation of the family. The learned Family Judge as well as the High Court has clearly analysed the evidence and recorded a finding that the wife had treated the husband with mental cruelty. True it is, there is some reference in that regard to the photostat copy of the letter which we have not accepted as admissible in evidence but the other evidence brought on record clearly support the findings recorded by the learned Family Judge and the High Court and the said finding remains in the realm of fact." 31. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case as discussed above, we are satisfied that the conduct of the respondent/wife even if it may not be said to be adulterous, but certainly amounted to infliction of mental cruelty upon the appellant inasmuch as she admittedly was found alone with one Laxman in a closed room; Laxman was only wearing underwear and banyan when the persons reached at the spot while searching the respondent, leaves no room for doubt that the conduct of the respondent was such which certainly causes mental cruelty. Moreover, her utterance in the presence of the witnesses have come in the witness box that she wanted to live along with Laxman and was not willing to live with the appellant which was also the act of causing mental cruelty. Thus, we are satisfied that it is a fit case where the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty. As such, the appellant is entitled to dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under section 13(l)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 32. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Judge and dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under section 13(l)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.