JUDGMENT : Raj Rahul Garg, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2014 rendered by District Judge (Family Court, Bhiwani whereby the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion instituted by husband-Vijender Singh was dismissed with costs. 2. The marriage between the parties took place on November 18, 2000. According to the husband, the marriage was simple. A male child, namely, Aman was born out of this wedlock on 19.11.2002. However, the behaviour of the wife was abnormal during her stay in the matrimonial home. The husband also took the plea that wife might be a patient of schizophrenia. The husband was living in joint family at Village Ramayan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The wife insisted and pressurised him to live separately from his parents. She had been creating scenes on each and every day, even in the presence of neighbours and relatives. In order to keep harmony in the family, the husband separated from the joint family on 19.11.2002. It was further pleaded that the wife continued her rude behaviour up to January, 2009 i.e. the day when she finally left the society of the husband without any reasonable cause. As per the husband, in November, 2007, he shifted from Village Ramayan to Hisar as wife used to quarrel with the wife of the landlord without any cause. She had created compelling circumstances which led to vacation of their house of Village Ramayan in the month of January, 2010. The husband joined the services in the HDFC Bank at Hisar in the month of February, 2007. As per the husband, on many occasions wife came in the premises of HDFC Bank, Hisar and created scenes in the presence of employees. As a result, the services of husband were terminated. The husband came on the road. The wife made complaint against the husband twice before the Police but the police found the allegations of the wife as false. Finding it difficult and impossible to live with wife under one roof, husband knocked the door of the Court seeking dissolution of marriage on the two counts i.e., cruelty and desertion. 3. As per the case of wife, husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given to her from the very beginning of the marriage. They started taunting, harassing, humiliating the wife for bringing insufficient dowry. 3. As per the case of wife, husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given to her from the very beginning of the marriage. They started taunting, harassing, humiliating the wife for bringing insufficient dowry. They also used to give her beatings. The husband had turned out the wife from her matrimonial home every now and then. However, with the intervention of relatives and members of Panchayat each time the matter was patched up, After the birth of the child, the situation became worse and the husband wanted to get rid off the wife and the child. Many complaints/litigations are pending between the parties. Parents of the wife convened Panchayat many times and tried to pacify the husband and his family members but they refused to take the wife till their demands of dowry were fulfilled. Under these compelling circumstances wife is living with her parents. All other allegations of the husband were controverted. 4. Following issues were struck by the then learned District & Sessions Judge (Family Court), Hisar. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, as alleged in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has deserted the respondent- wife as alleged? OPP. 3. Relief. 5. It is imperative to mention that issue No. 2 is incorrectly framed as it says whether the petitioner has deserted the wife. In fact, petitioner-husband himself is seeking the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. In case petitioner-husband proves that the respondent-wife has deserted the petitioner-husband, only then he would be able to get the decree of divorce, as such, issue No. 2 should have been "whether respondent-wife deserted the petitioner-husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition"? 6. The learned trial Court dismissed the petition on both the grounds holding that husband has failed to prove that wife had treated him with cruelty. The husband has failed to prove that the wife is having disease which is not curable and more so he in fact never mentioned about the disease of his wife in the earlier litigation. 6. The learned trial Court dismissed the petition on both the grounds holding that husband has failed to prove that wife had treated him with cruelty. The husband has failed to prove that the wife is having disease which is not curable and more so he in fact never mentioned about the disease of his wife in the earlier litigation. It was also observed that demand of separate residence is not an act of cruelty that since criminal proceedings initiated by the wife are pending, therefore, it cannot be said that the criminal complaint was false as wife can always take recourse to law. Simple wear and tear of the married life does not constitute cruelty. 7. The husband admitted that he joined HDFC Bank at Hisar in February, 2007 and was residing in Arya Nagar, Hansi, whereas, wife remained at Village Ramayan up to 2013 as she was occupying the house there i.e. her matrimonial home. With this evidence on file, learned trial Court concluded that the husband himself deserted his wife by living at another place. Further husband has failed to show that he was subjected to such conduct which is of such a character so as to cause danger to life, limb or health giving rise to reasonable apprehension that it would be dangerous to live with the wife. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the husband. 9. In order to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the husband has to show that he has been subjected to such conduct which is of such a character so as to cause danger to life, limb so as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that it would be dangerous to life to live with the wife. Every matrimonial conduct which may cause annoyance, to the other party may not amount to cruelty. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007(4) SCC 511 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the concept of cruelty differs from person to person, depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial, social status, customs, traditions, religious belief, human values and their value system. Therefore, it is essential for the party who claims relief to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him. Therefore, it is essential for the party who claims relief to prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in cruelty to him. The aggrieved party has to make a specific case that the conduct of other spouse caused cruelty. Bearing these principles in the mind the gravity of alleged cruelty is weighed i.e. whether the conduct of the respondent-wife was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. 10. It was contended by counsel for the husband that the behaviour of wife during her stay in matrimonial home was abnormal. She had quarrelled with neighbours, relatives on each and every day. She had also been quarrelling with the wife of the landlord without any reason. She had created such a situation that husband and his parents were compelled to vacate their own house of Village Ramayan in the month of January, 2010. 11. In fact no specific instance was mentioned either in the petition or in the evidence which proves the abnormal behaviour of the wife. Not even a single witness from the locality where the parties lived, was examined so as to prove the abnormal behaviour of the wife. What sort of scenes were created by the wife also do not find mention either in the petition or in the evidence. Though one Sujata was examined as PW-5 by the husband to prove his case on this count, yet she deposed that she has been knowing parties since 2009 as her husband was an employee in HDFC Bank. She further deposed that husband and wife used to quarrel occasionally. Occasional quarrels cannot be termed as cause of cruelty to the husband as it is the ordinary wear and tear of the life. Trivial irritation quarrels between spouses, which happen in day to day married life, cannot be termed as cruelty in this case. There is also no material on the file to show that the services of husband were terminated only on the ground of misbehaviour of the wife. 12. It was next contended by counsel for the husband that on account of insistence and pressure exercised by the wife on the husband, he had to live separately from his parents but wife continued her rude behaviour towards the husband up to January, 2009 i.e. the day when she finally left the society of the husband without any reasonable cause. It was next contended by counsel for the husband that on account of insistence and pressure exercised by the wife on the husband, he had to live separately from his parents but wife continued her rude behaviour towards the husband up to January, 2009 i.e. the day when she finally left the society of the husband without any reasonable cause. In fact there is nothing on record to show as to under what circumstances wife left the house of the husband in January, 2009. There is also nothing on record to show the above rude behaviour of the wife. The allegation that the wife desired separate residence from in-laws remained unsubstantiated. 13. The counsel for the husband laid much stress while arguing, on the point that wife lodged FIR against the husband and his family members and it is a cause of mental cruelty. It is not disputed that the case under Section 498A IPC was got registered by the wife but unless there is a finding of the Court that the complaint was false, it cannot be said that complaint filed by the wife contained false allegations. Counsel for the husband has failed to show any such finding recorded by any of the Courts in this regard. It is also the settled proposition of law that if a complaint has been filed in order to seek remedy that would mean that complainant had taken recourse to law. Initiation of legal proceedings for redressal of one's legal rights or to punish wrong doers cannot be said to be an act of cruelty. Thus, for these reasons the contention of learned counsel for the husband on this point is not tenable. 14. It was next contended by the counsel for the husband that the wife is a patient of schizophrenia depression as she used to create problem in the house of the husband. He then contended that Dr. Bir Singh was examined as PW-1, who deposed about the illness of wife. He also proved OPD treatment record as Exhibit P-1 and admission and discharge report Exhibit P-2. Thus with this evidence alone husband wanted to prove that wife is suffering from schizophrenia depression and thus it is a cause of cruelty to the husband. In fact, Dr. Bir Singh, PW-1, during the course of his examination deposed that it is treatable illness and it is not a continuous process. Thus with this evidence alone husband wanted to prove that wife is suffering from schizophrenia depression and thus it is a cause of cruelty to the husband. In fact, Dr. Bir Singh, PW-1, during the course of his examination deposed that it is treatable illness and it is not a continuous process. Normal person can always develop such type of depression if the normal atmosphere of the home is disturbed. In his report Ex.P2, he did not mention that wife is having permanent disease which is not curable. On the other hand this report speaks about the nature of illness of wife as a treatable illness. The symptoms of aggressive behaviour and sadness of mood, does lot mean that she is suffering from any disease but the same is the result of family atmosphere at matrimonial home. In the absence of any evidence on the file about the rude behaviour of the wife, the mere branding of wife as suffering from schizophrenia would not be sufficient. The degree of mental disorder must be proved to be such that both spouses cannot reasonably be expected to live together. In the case in hand even in the pleadings, the husband made a mention that the wife might be a schizophrenic patient. But it shows that the husband was not sure about the disease of the wife. He has also not mentioned about any such disease of the wife in the previous litigation which further makes this Court believe that pleading to this effect is an after thought and only to create a ground for divorce. The medical evidence is also on the file which says that the illness is treatable. With this evidence on the file, the arguments of learned counsel for the husband that wife is suffering from schizophrenia depression, a cause of cruelty to the husband is also not sustainable. Thus the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the ground of cruelty do not suffer from any illegality, as such, the same are hereby affirmed. 15. The essence of desertion, forsaking, an abandonment of one spouse by the other without reasonable cause or without the consent or against the wish of the other is necessary. The 'desertion' is "a withdrawal not from spouse, but from state of things". 15. The essence of desertion, forsaking, an abandonment of one spouse by the other without reasonable cause or without the consent or against the wish of the other is necessary. The 'desertion' is "a withdrawal not from spouse, but from state of things". The essential ingredients that may furnish a ground for relief are; (i) The factum of separation; and (ii) the intention to prove cohabitation permanently to an end- animus deserendi. 16. The element of permanence is a prime contention which requires that both the aforesaid essentials continues during the entire statutory period. Desertion is 'wilful neglect' of the petitioning spouse by the wife. In the case in hand there is no such wilful neglect either pleaded or proved by the husband. Simple version that the wife has left the matrimonial home in January, 2009 without any reasonable cause does not prove the wilful neglect of wife particularly when no incident, no circumstance finds mention which led to her leaving the matrimonial home. Learned trial Court has held that Ex.P3 is an application filed by wife before SSP Bhiwani, against the husband and his family members wherein she has mentioned that she is ready to live with the husband, thus from this fact alone it is proved on the file that wife had no intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end or that she has no intention to live with the husband. From this finding of learned trial court, we conclude that unless there is intention to being cohabitation permanently to an end, even if, there is long separation between the parties that would not amount to desertion. The husband and his family members have been residing at Hansi for 9 months and also filed an application for taking divorce from the wife that further goes to show the intention of the husband that he intends to take divorce on one ground or the other. It is proved on the record that wife lived in the house of the husband till 2013, whereas, husband had been living at Hansi. This act shows that it is the husband who himself deserted his wife by living at another place. It is proved on the record that wife lived in the house of the husband till 2013, whereas, husband had been living at Hansi. This act shows that it is the husband who himself deserted his wife by living at another place. Thus, if the husband had made the living of wife difficult and if the wife had been living separately under compelling circumstances without an intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end, the husband cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs and certainly this case cannot be termed as a case of desertion affording the ground of divorce to the husband. 17. No other point was argued before this Court. 18. In the aforesaid legal and factual background, the inevitable conclusion is that the appeal of the husband is without any merit and as such, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. C. Misc. No. 11452-CII of 2014 19. Since the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, no separate order on the application for condonation of delay is being passed thereon and is disposed of as such.