ORDER : Navin Sinha, J. Matrimonial Case No. 126 of 2001 was filed by the Appellant before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking divorce from the Respondent. The grounds urged were cruelty and desertion. The Respondent had earlier filed a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights and also a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code registered as Arrah (M) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2000. The two cases filed by the Respondent were not pursued on account of subsequent compromise which ultimately failed and came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Family Court on 29.3.2007 dismissed the plea for divorce. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the parties were married on 18.6.1993. The Respondent did not have any respect and neither did she take care of the family members of the Appellant. She tried to command and dictate the family from a position of superiority. She lacked the humbleness and behaviour as a wife and daughter-in-law. Three months after the marriage she left the matrimonial home without the consent of the Appellant or his parents. She returned in January 1997. The Respondent denied respect to the Appellants father declining to take permission from him for any activity. In June 1997 she left the matrimonial home again. All efforts to bring her back were in vain. She desired the Appellant to live with her at her parental home. The state of affairs continued till January 2001. A compromise was arrived at in the Section 498A IPC proceeding whereafter the Respondent came to the matrimonial home in February 2001. She again started to misbehave causing mental and physical torture to the Appellant and his family using abusive slangs. On two/three occasions she attempted to assault the mother-in-law. There has been no conjugal relationship between the parties since May 1997. The respondent had deserted the matrimonial home. The marriage failed because of her cruel and obstinate behaviour. There had been wilful denial of cohabitation and conjugal relationship for which reliance was placed on 2001(1) PLJR 456 (Raj Kumar Jaiswal vs. Smt. Mamta Jaiswal). The Family Court, in the facts, should have allowed divorce. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent denied the allegations. It was submitted that immediately after going to the matrimonial home, demands for dowry were made. The Family Court, in the facts, should have allowed divorce. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent denied the allegations. It was submitted that immediately after going to the matrimonial home, demands for dowry were made. When matters became intolerable she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Notwithstanding the behaviour of her in-laws and other family members she filed Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On account of the subsequent compromise, she did not pursue the case including the criminal prosecution. Both were therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. It was the cruel behaviour of the Appellant and his family members that forced her to leave the matrimonial home. 4. The witnesses on behalf of the Appellant, apart from himself, were his father, mother, brother and a friend. The Respondent apart from herself examined her father and her brother. 5. The plaint of the matrimonial case generally referred to cruelty on part of the Respondent, use of abusive language and assault upon the mother-in-law. Not one instance of the nature of any cruel behaviour much less any date has been mentioned. Likewise what were the nature of abusive slangs used have also not been mentioned much less any date it was used. No date or nature of assault on the mother-in-law has been also mentioned. That a compromise took place in the Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 1999 is acknowledged. 6. The evidence on behalf of the Appellant acknowledges that the marriage was arranged by an intermediary. The Appellant or his family members had not seen the respondent before the marriage. They were not aware how educated she was. It was emphasized that the Appellant was fair while the Respondent was very dark complexioned. She never cooked food. It was alleged that she would go out of the house without taking permission from the Appellant or his family members. They were willing to pay alimony throughout the life of the Respondent. Under no circumstances would they accept her back in the matrimonial home. They were also not averse to the Appellant remarrying. The neighbors, who were named, also did not approve of her behaviour. None of them were however examined. 7. The Respondent and her witnesses deposed that from the moment she went to the matrimonial home monetary dowry demands were made leading to proceedings under Section 498A IPC. They were also not averse to the Appellant remarrying. The neighbors, who were named, also did not approve of her behaviour. None of them were however examined. 7. The Respondent and her witnesses deposed that from the moment she went to the matrimonial home monetary dowry demands were made leading to proceedings under Section 498A IPC. After the compromise the Appellant kept the Respondent with him for two months and then reached her to back to the parental home with the assurance to take her back. Instead followed the notice under Section 13 of the Act. The Respondent asserted cruel behaviour on part of the Appellant including that of physical assault. 8. Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act provides “cruelty” as one of the grounds for divorce. “Desertion” for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the presentation of an application is also a ground for divorce under sub-clause (i-b). The word “cruelty” has not been defined under the Act. The meaning and purport of the same has been the subject of varied judicial consideration. It cannot have any rigid, consistent and uniform definition. The meaning has to be relative to the context, the status of the parties, the nature of behaviour in the relationship, along with a host of surrounding circumstances. In simple terms, it would mean behaviour of a kind, not isolated or sporadic, but a course of conduct or speech either continuous or repeated. It may be intentional or un-intentional. The conduct must be of such a nature because of which one party to the marriage finds it extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain normal human relations with another or even the facade of such relationship except by accepting a status virtually devoid of human respect, an object to be ridiculed at all times. Life in the circumstances becomes intolerable on daily basis. The strong may decide to come out of it by breaking the marriage; the weak may succumb in different ways including the giving up the will to live. In such cases where cruelty is based on behaviour, conduct, spoken words, issues would be different and it would require to be examined on the facts of a case if the behaviour amounted to cruelty or not. The onus is on the person alleging cruelty in the marriage to prove it by necessary pleadings and evidence. In such cases where cruelty is based on behaviour, conduct, spoken words, issues would be different and it would require to be examined on the facts of a case if the behaviour amounted to cruelty or not. The onus is on the person alleging cruelty in the marriage to prove it by necessary pleadings and evidence. Generalised omnibus usages of the word cruelty, abusive language etc. may not satisfy the requirement of the law. There may be cruelty by physically assault also. Such cases may not pose serious difficulty. 9. Marriage is a sacred institution. It is a delicate balance of human relations. No two human beings are alike. The upbringing, family background, education, friends, looks, hobbies and interests vary from one to another. Every marriage is therefore a process of learning to know each other, appreciating and respecting a fellow human being. This may be easier facilitated where the parties are known to each other from before the marriage. Even this has pitfalls when the toils of daily life surface. Greater efforts are required by both in cases where the parties have not known each other from before. Every marriage therefore has its ups and downs. In (2005) 2 SCC 22 (A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur) the institution of marriage has succinctly be explained as follows :- “14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each others fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.” 10. But this variation in human behaviour, in our opinion cannot constitute cruelty by itself. In (1975) 2 SCC 326 (Dr. M. G. Dastane vs. Mrs. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.” 10. But this variation in human behaviour, in our opinion cannot constitute cruelty by itself. In (1975) 2 SCC 326 (Dr. M. G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane) it was observed at paragraph 34 as follows:- “34. We do not propose to spend time on the trifles of their married life. Numerous incidents have been cited by the appellant as constituting cruelty but the simple trivialities which can truly be described as the reasonable wear and tear of married life have to be ignored. It is in the context of such trivialities that one says that spouses take each other for better or worse. In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage. We will therefore have regard only to grave and weighty incidents and consider these to find what place they occupy on the marriage canvas.” 11. We shall now examine if in the facts of the present case the conduct of the Respondent as alleged constitutes mental cruelty and if she deserted the Appellant without reasonable cause. 12. Indisputably neither the Appellant nor his family members had ever seen the Respondent before marriage. The marriage was arranged through an intermediary. She was dark complexioned and the Appellant fair. This, in our opinion, appears to have become an issue for the Appellant and his family immediately after the respondent came to the matrimonial home and they saw her for the first time. Beauty is ephemeral. The Appellant considered it primal. A specific stand was taken on the issue on behalf of the Appellant that they would not accept the Respondent in the matrimonial home under any circumstances even at the cost of having to pay maintenance throughout her life. The remarriage of the Appellant was also floating in their mind. Presumably, the demand for dowry was considered a palliative for the dark complexion of the Respondent. The remarriage of the Appellant was also floating in their mind. Presumably, the demand for dowry was considered a palliative for the dark complexion of the Respondent. Not a single instance of cruel or unseemly behaviour by the respondent has been cited by the Appellant to justify that she left the matrimonial home of her own volition against his wishes within three months of the marriage. The respondent was a complete stranger to the Appellant and his family. The responsibility was greater on the Appellant to help her adjust. Her leaving the matrimonial home barely three months after marriage was certainly not a normal course of events unless the respondent for reasons not attributable to her was compelled to do so, finding herself totally unwelcome in the new house, being treated as an outright stranger. 13. Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 1999 was filed by the Respondent for restitution of conjugal rights in proximity of time. It was indicative of her desire to restore matrimonial harmony. Lack of adequate response led to proceedings under Section 498A IPC in 2000. The Appellant, feeling the heat, to facilitate bail entered into a compromise in February 2001 obviously not with honest intentions and took her to the matrimonial home. The Respondent was again left at her parental home soon thereafter and deserted. On account of the compromise, in good faith, she lost interest in the cases filed by her and subsequently perhaps felt the futility of the same in view of the conduct of the Appellant as the application under Section 9 was dismissed for non prosecution as late as 24.11.2005. Lack of pursuit of litigation cannot be a negative aspect against the respondent in the facts of the case. 14. Not a single instance of cruel behaviour, by date or nature, much less the nature of abusive language has been mentioned either in the plaint or the evidence of the Appellant. The allegations are bald and more in the nature of irresponsible utterances to defend what otherwise appears to be indefensible conduct on part of the Appellant. The Respondent, irrespective of her social strata, after marriage did not surrender her identity as a human being. A woman after marriage does not acquire a servile status or is required to remain in confinement. The Respondent, irrespective of her social strata, after marriage did not surrender her identity as a human being. A woman after marriage does not acquire a servile status or is required to remain in confinement. The contention of the Appellant that she did not show respect to the elders are empty embellishments again without a single instance cited. 15. In our opinion, it is the Appellant who caused cruelty to the respondent by his behaviour creating a situation for the Respondent where she was left with no option but to leave the matrimonial home for the sake of her own dignity. The conduct of the Appellant was obviously not conducive for the purpose. It cannot be said in the facts of the case that the Respondent was compelled to leave the matrimonial home not without reasonable cause. The Appellant cannot take the defense of desertion. Merely because the case under Section 498A IPC and Section 9 of the Act, may have been dismissed subsequently for non prosecution cannot lead to assumption in the facts of the case of a false prosecution either. The Appellant cannot take advantage of his own conduct to level allegations for a failed marriage against the Respondent and seek divorce on that ground. That would be giving him an advantage for his own wrongs as observed in (2010) 13 SCC 298 ( Neelam Kumar v. Dayarani) as follows :- “14. We are not impressed by this submission at all. There is nothing to indicate that the respondent has contributed in any way to the alleged breakdown of the marriage. If a party to a marriage, by his own conduct brings the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown, he/she cannot be allowed to seek divorce on the ground of breakdown of the marriage. That would simply mean giving someone the benefits of his/her own misdeeds.” 16. Raj Kumar Jaiswal (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. A finding had been arrived at against the wife based on her conduct. The finding in the present case is to the converse. 17. In conclusion we find no merit in the Appeal. 18. The Appeal is dismissed. Vikash Jain, J. : I agree.