Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 27.2.2015 rendered by learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in HMA No. 14/2011. 2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. According to the facts as set out the petition, marriage between the parties was solemnised on 6.5.2001 at Garhshankar (Punjab) in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Parties lived together at Una and marriage was consummated. Appellant refused to maintain the marital sexual relation with the respondent to avoid pregnancy. Appellant used to pick up quarrels. She used abusive language against the respondent. Family members of the respondent were also humiliated. On 5.1.2002, appellant without any cause, left the matrimonial house. Respondent persuaded her to come back. She came back on 20.6.2006. Father of the respondent was serious in January 2009. However, appellant did not look after him. She did not attend the last rites of the Aunt of the respondent. He asked her to give breakfast. She became furious and started throwing utensils. Mother of the respondent was admitted to the hospital. She never served her. She left the matrimonial house on 10.3.2011 without informing anybody. Respondent lost his mother on 4.4.2011. However, appellant did not attend the last rites of the mother of the respondent. Acts of the appellant have caused mental and physical cruelty to the respondent. Petition was contested by the appellant. Appellant denied the allegations contained in the petition. According to her, respondent was habitual of heavy drinking. He has beaten up the appellant and kicked her in the abdomen. She was admitted to the hospital at Una. She lost the child. She was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 17.8.2011 after giving her severe beatings. Respondent has extra-marital affairs with one Mona. He was leading an adulterous life. She has come back to the matrimonial home on the intervention of one Kartar Chand, RW-1. Respondent demanded a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh from her. Rejoinder was filed. 3. Issues were framed by learned Court on 5.9.2012. Petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. Marriage was dissolved on 27.2.2015. Hence, this appeal. 4. Ms. She has come back to the matrimonial home on the intervention of one Kartar Chand, RW-1. Respondent demanded a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh from her. Rejoinder was filed. 3. Issues were framed by learned Court on 5.9.2012. Petition was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. Marriage was dissolved on 27.2.2015. Hence, this appeal. 4. Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, has vehemently argued that her client was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent. She further contended that the respondent has mal-treated the appellant. 5. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishta, Advocate, has supported the judgment passed by learned Court below. 6. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 7. Respondent has appeared as PW-1. He has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. He has reiterated the grounds taken in the petition, in the affidavit. He is a truck driver by profession. He has never raised any demand for dowry. He has never given blow on the abdomen of the appellant. Appellant has left the matrimonial house on 5.1.2002. She was brought back by the respondent on 20.6.2006. He has never demanded Rs.1.00 Lakh from the appellant in the month of March 2003. He was never paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- by his father-in-law. 8. PW-2 Tilak Raj has corroborated the statement of PW-1. Appellant used to quarrel with her husband. She did not do any household work. She left the matrimonial home in January 2002. She came back in February, 2006. Appellant did not look after the parents of the respondent. 9. Kartar Chand has appeared as RW-1. he came to know that respondent wanted to marry some other girl. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the appellant was related to him. He has never lodged any complaint of his being informed that appellant was being ill-treated by the respondent. He also admitted that appellant did not attend funeral ceremony of mother of the respondent. 10. Appellant appeared as RW-2. She reiterated her stand taken in the reply. She has never lodged any complaint regarding alleged beatings given to her and also not lodged any complaint qua abortion. She has not informed even her parents regarding abortion. Her husband had affair with one Mona. She was given sleeping pills. 11. 10. Appellant appeared as RW-2. She reiterated her stand taken in the reply. She has never lodged any complaint regarding alleged beatings given to her and also not lodged any complaint qua abortion. She has not informed even her parents regarding abortion. Her husband had affair with one Mona. She was given sleeping pills. 11. RW-3 Deepak Kumar, father of the appellant, has admitted that his daughter has come to her parents’ house on 5.1.2002. She has stayed there for two years. He has noticed injuries on the body of his daughter. He did not lodge any complaint either with the police or Panchayat. He came to know about the affair of the respondent with one Mona on 10.3.2011. 12. It has come on record that appellant refused to look after the family of the respondent. She has not attended the last rites of her mother-in-law. She did not look after her father-in-law. She left the matrimonial home on 5.1.2002 and on the persuasion of respondent, came back on 20.6.2006. RW-1 Kartar Chand testified that he was told by the appellant that she was being tortured for bringing insufficient dowry. However, appellant has not stated that she has told this to RW-1 Kartar Chand. She has not mentioned about demand of dowry by the respondent. He came to know about the incident whereby respondent has given kick in the abdomen of his daughter from her Aunt. However, there is no evidence that appellant has ever told her Aunt about this. Allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent are serious. She has not substantiated these at all. In her affidavit, in examination-in-chief, RW-2 deposed that respondent used to visit the house of Mona, but in her cross-examination, she deposed that Mona used to come to her house and she has seen her husband with Mona in closed room. There was no averment made in the pleadings that she was ever given sleeping pills by her in-laws. Behaviour of the appellant against respondent was repulsive. Thus, it is evident on the basis of evidence discussed that the appellant has caused respondent physical and mental cruelty. 13. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 have explained the term “cruelty” as under: “4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. 13. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 have explained the term “cruelty” as under: “4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in elation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and 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 the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it 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 per se 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. 5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the Court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents. Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon, [1966] 2 All E.R. 257 (259) "the categories of cruelty are not closed." Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful/realm of cruelty.” 14. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , have enumerated some instances of human behaviour, which may be important in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty, as under: “98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other Courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of 'mental cruelty' within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. 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 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. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in 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 strait-jacket 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 while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manisha Tyagi vs. Deepak Kumar reported in 2010(1) Divorce & Matrimonial Cases 451, have explained the term ‘cruelty’ as under: “24. This is no longer the required standard. Now it would be sufficient to show that the conduct of one of the spouses is so abnormal and below the accepted norm that the other spouse could not reasonable be expected to put up with it. The conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause a reasonable apprehension that would be harmful or injurious to continue the cohabitation with the other spouse. Therefore, to establish cruelty it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. However, continued ill-treatment cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference of one spouse to the other may lead to an inference of cruelty. However, in this case even with aforesaid standard both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had accepted that the conduct of the wife did not amount to cruelty of such a nature to enable the husband to obtain a decree of divorce.” 16. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar vs. Julumidevi reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476, have explained the term ‘cruelty’ as under: “19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. 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 ma be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it ma be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. 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 case can be of infinite variety – it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and word. That possible explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial case are never closed. 21. This Court is reminded of what was said by Lord Reid in Gollins v. Gollins about judging cruelty in matrimonial cases. The pertinent observations are (AC p.660) “.. In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with the reasonable man as we are in cases of negligence. We are dealing with this man and this woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we make about them the better. In cruelty cases one can hardly ever even start with a presumption that the parties are reasonable people, because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both the spouses think and behave as reasonable people.” 22. “ About the changing perception of cruelty in matrimonial cases, this Court observed in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi at AIR p. 123, para 5 of the report: (SCC p.108, para 5) “5. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been (a) marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. A set of facts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the Judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties.” 17. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.