Judgment: L. Narasimha Reddy, J. These two family Court appeals, under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 12.04.2007 at Hyderabad. The respondent was employed in ICICI Bank. It appears that loan of about Rs.2 lakhs was raised by the family of the respondent from the said Bank. At the threshold of the marriage itself, the appellant expressed his displeasure about the employment of the respondent and the borrowing of the loan to be repaid through deductions from her salary. The simmering differences resulted in their living separately, within a short time. The respondent filed O.P.No.96 of 2008 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for a decree directing restitution of conjugal rights between her and the appellant. The O.P. was transferred to the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, and was renumbered as O.P.No.111 of 2008. Almost all the same point of time, a petition, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., was also filed by her for maintenance. After receiving a notice in O.P.No.111 of 2008, the appellant filed a counter opposing the same. It was pleaded that the fault is with the respondent and that to cover up her lapses, she filed the O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also stated that the nuptials were not performed after the marriage. Thereafter, extensive correspondence ensued between the parties. On his part, the appellant filed O.P.No.167 of 2009 in the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, against the respondent, for divorce. He pleaded that the respondent suppressed the information as to her being employed and raising of loan and that inspite of his request to resign the job, she did not accede to his request. He has narrated the other events that are said to have taken place, when the respondent joined him, soon after the marriage at a flat and the one that occurred in his house at Amalapuram. He stated that the respondent is adamant and not cooperative and that her actions and omissions constitute cruelty. He has narrated the other events that are said to have taken place, when the respondent joined him, soon after the marriage at a flat and the one that occurred in his house at Amalapuram. He stated that the respondent is adamant and not cooperative and that her actions and omissions constitute cruelty. The respondent filed a counter opposing the O.P. She made a detailed reference to the correspondence that ensued between them and stated that the appellant and his father prevented her from joining their family on one pretext or the other. It was also urged that a petition for divorce was filed, as counter-blast for the O.P. filed by her, under Section 9 of the Act. Through common order, dated 19.10.2010, the trial Court dismissed O.P.No.167 of 2009 and decreed O.P.No.111 of 2008 with costs. Hence, these two appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court erred in recording findings to the effect that the respondent is not guilty of the acts constituting cruelty. He submits that the respondent suppressed the information about her being employed and obtaining of loan from the Bank and that she was distrustful towards the appellant. He further submits that the very fact that the respondent filed a maintenance case, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is sufficient to conclude that she is interested more in money than sustaining the matrimony. He contends that the respondent failed to join the matrimonial home and left the place without there being any provocation. He submits that the trial Court ought to have decreed O.P.No.167 of 2009 filed for divorce, once it is found that there is no possibility for the parties to live together, and ought to have dismissed O.P.No.111 of 2008 filed for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the averments made in the O.P. filed by the appellant are totally incorrect and that even if they are taken into account, it cannot be said that they constitute the acts of cruelty. He submits that the appellant has no regard for truth and he went on twisting the facts, according to his wishes, be it as regards the consummation of marriage, his failure to put up a residence in Hyderabad or the events that have took place at Amalapuram. He submits that the appellant has no regard for truth and he went on twisting the facts, according to his wishes, be it as regards the consummation of marriage, his failure to put up a residence in Hyderabad or the events that have took place at Amalapuram. He submits that while the appellant expressed his surprise about the information as to the respondent being employed and the loan being borrowed, the letter addressed by his father makes it clear that the employment and the loan were very much in their knowledge. He further submits that the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference. The trial Court clubbed the petition filed by the respondent, under Section 9 of the Act, with the one filed by the appellant, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. No points as such were framed, but the matter was discussed covering all the aspects pleaded by the parties. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.16. The respondent deposed as R.W.1 and filed Exs.B.1 to B.7. The O.P. filed by the appellant for divorce was dismissed and the one filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. Now, the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1) whether the appellant proved the cruelty on the part of the respondent warranting dissolution of marriage between them? And 2) Whether the respondent is entitled for the relief of decree for restitution of conjugal rights? It is observed that the answer to the second point would depend upon the answer to the first point. POINT No.1: Cruelty, on the part of one spouse to a marriage, is recognized as a ground for grant of a decree for divorce against the other spouse. The Act does not define as to what constitutes cruelty. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court and the High Courts explained the purport of this clause. The gist thereof is that cruelty, to constitute a ground for granting a decree for divorce, need not be the one resulting in bodily injuries to the aggrieved spouse. It would be sufficient, if through his or her acts, omissions and gestures one spouse has caused mental agony, anguish and discomfort to the other, to the level of rendering the cohabitation impossible. It would be sufficient, if through his or her acts, omissions and gestures one spouse has caused mental agony, anguish and discomfort to the other, to the level of rendering the cohabitation impossible. However, these aspects need be examined from the point of view of an ordinary prudent person and not according to the whims of one of the parties. Before the trial Court also, various judgments that have bearing upon these aspects have been cited. One of the principal causes pleaded by the appellant against the respondent as constituting act of cruelty is that the respondent did not disclose the fact that she was employed and that she had borrowed loan of about Rs.2 lakhs. This was elaborated in para 8 of the O.P., as under: “On the first day of their arrival at Amalapuram, when the petitioner and the respondent were in the bed room, the petitioner, who learnt that the respondent took loan from ICICI Bank, enquired the respondent about loan. The respondent informed the petitioner that she contacted loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from ICICI Bank as required by her father in February, 2007. She also informed that she is discharging the loan by paying Rs.6,000/-monthly from out of her salary. This news shocked the petitioner, as he was not informed about contacting the loan before it was taken, though, by then, the Muhurtham for marriage was fixed and there was obligation to obtain consent of the petitioner to take loan. He found fault with the respondent for taking the loan without his concern behind his back, after the settlement of marriage and fixing Muhurtham for marriage.” This event influenced the appellant to such an extent that he is not ready to live with the respondent, unless she resigns the job and clears the loan. In his letter, dated 26.07.2007, addressed to the respondent, which was marked as Ex.B.2, the appellant stated: “It is sufficient if you live with me and lead marital life. I expect you to clear all debts and resign the job immediately and come to my house and live with me happily. I do not want my wife to strain from morning 8.00 a.m. to night 8.00 p.m. I hope, you understand my feelings and cooperate with me and return to my house discharging the debts and resigning the job, as early as possible.” To the same effect are the contents of other letters. I do not want my wife to strain from morning 8.00 a.m. to night 8.00 p.m. I hope, you understand my feelings and cooperate with me and return to my house discharging the debts and resigning the job, as early as possible.” To the same effect are the contents of other letters. In his deposition as the sole witness on his side, he stated “The respondent did not resign the job. So, I did not take her”. Firstly, the conduct of the appellant, in this behalf, cannot be countenanced. It is un-understandable as to how he can impose a condition that the respondent can join him, only after she resigns the job and clears the loan obtained by her. It is only the feudal mentality that can produce such ideas. It is quite possible to plead that more than the money and other aspects, the appellant was concerned about the information given to him as to the avocation of the respondent. He pleaded as though he was informed that the respondent was not employed and that she has no obligations to discharge. In a given case, an individual, who is sensitive enough, feels cheated, if the information given to him about his prospective wife was found to be incorrect. However, the fallacy of the argument or the case of the appellant is evident from the letter written by his father to the respondent. Ex.B.1 is a letter, dated 28.09.2007, running into 11 fully typed pages, addressed by the father of the appellant to the respondent. The letter inter alia reads: “At the time of “PELLICHOOPULU” my boy, my sister, my daughter and her husband alone were present, besides your parents. You were wearing Punjabi dress. After seeing you, I informed your father that you have to wear sarees and sit separately during menses and that ours is an orthodox family and that, if necessary, the job has to be resigned. Your father informed that you are an obedient girl and you agree for whatever is asked to be done and there is no difficulty in that regard. At the time of “PELLICHOOPULU”, your maternal uncle and his wife, paternal aunt and his husband or the only sister and her husband or any of your paternal uncles were not present. Your father informed that you are an obedient girl and you agree for whatever is asked to be done and there is no difficulty in that regard. At the time of “PELLICHOOPULU”, your maternal uncle and his wife, paternal aunt and his husband or the only sister and her husband or any of your paternal uncles were not present. Your father represented that you have been employed since many years and you have got cash balance in your account, besides drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and that he is not a dependant on you. On the other hand, he said that he himself is maintaining you and all your earnings are being saved by you till then. All these factors made my boy to agree to marry you, besides you are liked by him.” Apart from that, in his cross-examination, the appellant stated “I am aware prior to the marriage that the respondent is an employee”. The extent of importance given by the appellant and his father to money is evident from the following sentence in Ex.B.1: “I asked your father to perform the marriage at Amalapuram. But, having consulted his relations, he told that he has to face difficulty to perform marriage at Amalapuram and, as such, persuaded me to agree for performing marriage at Hyderabad. He told that he would pay Rs.1,75,000/- towards to and fro expenses, lanchanams, silver plate, silver tumbler, pattutapitalu and suits to be given to the boy etc. Taking into consideration the fact that your father is an old man and utter stranger to Amalapuram, I agreed for performing the marriage at Hyderabad, accepting the offer of your father. Your father also told that after marriage, the account standing in your name will be converted into joint account of yourself and my boy.” The suspicious and inquisitive nature of the father of the appellant is evident from the following passage from Ex.B.1: “Since my boy suspected that besides the loan from ICICI Bank, there are some other liabilities like loan from P.F. etc. He required you to furnish the information regarding P.F. account and account for the salary after marriage. The account given by you shows that though you are alone with parents and your parents are maintaining you as stated by him, you spent money lavishly and exorbitantly which a reasonable and prudent person is not expected to spend. He required you to furnish the information regarding P.F. account and account for the salary after marriage. The account given by you shows that though you are alone with parents and your parents are maintaining you as stated by him, you spent money lavishly and exorbitantly which a reasonable and prudent person is not expected to spend. My boy is also fearing whether he can live happily with a person like you who is habituated to spend money lavishly and exorbitantly.” The respondent was driven to such a miserable situation that she has decided to resign the job, unable to bear the harassment of the appellant and his father. Ultimately, she submitted the resignation. However, it is the appellant and his father that requested the respondent not to resign the job. In Ex.B.1, the father of the appellant stated: “He wrote the first letter that he will take you after resigning the job and discharging the loan. Later, having reconsidered the matter, he informed you not to resign the job with the hope that he can control you and prevent you from contacting loans, while living with him. When I was appraised about your intention to resign, I informed you that you should not resign and apply for leave. But you stated that you resigned and later it was converted into leave. I informed your father also to persuade to withdraw the resignation, if really given. He told that he persuaded the Managing Director, who is his friend, and the resignation letter was withdrawn.” From the above, it is clear that the version of the appellant that he did not want his wife i.e., the respondent to undergo any strain, on account of her employment, is nothing but false. The fact of the matter is that he was after the money or income of the respondent. Another reason pleaded by the appellant was that the nuptials were not performed. The O.P. filed by the respondent was earlier in point of time. She stated that the marriage was performed on 12.04.2007 and that the nuptials were held in the house of her parents at Huda Complex on 26.04.2007. Any respectable woman will feel shy to give such information to others. However, under compulsion, she had to disclose that in her O.P. The appellant, however, stated that the nuptials were not performed at all. Any respectable woman will feel shy to give such information to others. However, under compulsion, she had to disclose that in her O.P. The appellant, however, stated that the nuptials were not performed at all. His deposition in the cross-examination on this aspect reads: “It is true, the ceremony was arranged at Hyderabad. But, it was not performed. On that date, I was deprived of cohabitation. It is false to suggest, on that date, ceremony was performed and I participated. On that date, my sisters are present. But, there is no consummation. I have not informed the non-consummation of marriage to anybody. I could not take my wife with me, as she was not sent. I have not requested my in-laws to send my wife with me.” If, in fact, the nuptials were not conducted or performed, any person would share that information at least with his parents or the kith and kin. Just as he was not truthful in his statement about the employment of the respondent, he stated falsehood on this aspect also. The record discloses that the appellant had sent the respondent from his house, soon after the marriage, on the ground that she did not bring utensils and other cooking material. Even in the O.P. filed by him, he did not make any secret of this. Para 6 of the O.P. reads: “Later, the respondent and her parents came to the building of the petitioner in Sahara and the respondent refused to reside in the said building of the petitioner on the pretext that there are no utensils and cooking vessels, gas stove and other house hold articles necessary for family and that the building is located in an interior place without bus facility for the respondent to attend her office. It is not out of place to mention that amongst Hindu families, it is customary to send household articles necessary to set up parties did not live together after marriage on account of indifferent, stubborn and no cooperative attitude of the respondent and her refusal for cohabitation.” The facts, which are borne out by record, would demonstrate that the cruelty, if at all, was on the part of the appellant towards the respondent. She eagerly and respectably joined his company, but was driven out, on account of the greed and narrow-mindedness of the appellant. She eagerly and respectably joined his company, but was driven out, on account of the greed and narrow-mindedness of the appellant. The sad part of the matter is that for each of his untenable acts, the appellant has taken shelter under the custom and religion. He did not possess the basic requirements of an ordinary living and he expected them to be fetched by his wife. It would not be difficult to imagine the attitude of such person. One cannot expect the life partner of such person to be satisfied, much less comfortable. There are absolutely no merits in the O.P. filed by the appellant and he miserably failed to prove the acts of cruelty on the part of the respondent. Point No.1 is, accordingly, answered. POINT No.2: As observed at the threshold itself, once Point No.1 is answered against the appellant, the inevitable consequence is that Point No.2 deserves to be answered in favour of the respondent. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in the appeals shall stand disposed of.