JUDGMENT B. Veerappa, J. The unsuccessful husband/appellant has filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 made in M.C. No. 1182/2005 on the file of the 1 Additional Family Court, Bangalore allowing the petition filed by the wife/respondent under the provisions of Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage dated 12.3.1998 between the parties. 2. The facts of the case are: The wife/respondent filed M.C. No. 1182/2005 alleging that the she and her husband/ appellant, who are Hindus got married on 12.3.1998. Out of their wedlock, a daughter by name Omisa is born on 7.7.2002. At that time, the respondent was employed at Indian Express at Bombay while the appellant was employed with the same company at Bengaluru. The respondent is a Post-Graduate Diploma holder in Journalism and Mass Communication while the appellant is an Engineer. It was contended by the respondent herein that there was difference of opinion from the beginning of the marriage. The respondent's father was employed as an Assistant Director in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and was posted at Bombay. Both the appellant and respondent set up their matrimonial home along with parents of the respondent at Bengaluru and thereafter, they went to Bombay in the month of April, 1998 to attend a wedding celebration. At that time, the respondent was having her menstrual cycle. Unmindful of it, the appellant woke her up in the middle of the night and insisted for having sex. When the respondent refused, the appellant became very aggressive and accused her for being immoral with the whole world by denying him. The respondent was shocked by the insinuation and went into remorse. The appellant threatened her that he would call her parents and malign her character. Besides he made great insinuations, all of which left a lasting hurt on her. Thereafter, they lived in Bengaluru with the appellant's parents and the appellant continued to behave strangely with the respondent with a manifest air of suspicion. He did not leave the respondent to go out alone, even if it was for a market to buy vegetables. His mother was under instructions to accompany her. She also noticed that the male members in the house were in the habit of denigrating woman as a class. The respondent's mother-in-law was perennially subjected to such treatment. He did not leave the respondent to go out alone, even if it was for a market to buy vegetables. His mother was under instructions to accompany her. She also noticed that the male members in the house were in the habit of denigrating woman as a class. The respondent's mother-in-law was perennially subjected to such treatment. The respondent was discretely told to keep aloof from her parents as a mark of respect to his family and on number of occasions, the appellant had ill-treated her mother. The respondent's protests only invoked aggressive overtures and physical intimidation. It was alleged that in the month of May 1999, the appellant argued with the respondent over a trivial matter due to which he became so uncontrollably angry for which he slapped her very hardly on her face. When she tried to protect her face, he began kicking her furiously and started looking for a sickle which was kept in the room with a view to kill her. The respondent was completely shattered by the said incident since she was assaulted for the first time in her life. The appellant's cousin's wife on learning about this, admonished him and asked him to behave as a mature human being. Thereafter, the respondent went into a state of depression. Both the husband and wife visited voluntary organisation-'Spandana' for counselling and the appellant was advised further counselling and therapy by a psychiatrist on one or two occasions and later he discontinued the therapy. On two occasions, at the instance of the husband, the pregnancy was aborted for which the respondent suffered in silence. Indeed, she went into depression and on medical advise, she started taking anti-depression medication over one year. It is also contended that during October, 1999 the respondent took up employment with a Multinational Company as a Manager. She states that the appellant was intending to control the finance and he never permitted her to have a separate bank account. He was ensuring that her salary cheques were deposited in a joint account and was exercising total control over it. It was in the month of July, 2001 however, the appellant managed to open a separate bank account. Nevertheless, the respondent was asked to contribute to the household expenses though they lived in a joint family. On 7.7.2002, the respondent gave birth to a female child-Omisa. It was in the month of July, 2001 however, the appellant managed to open a separate bank account. Nevertheless, the respondent was asked to contribute to the household expenses though they lived in a joint family. On 7.7.2002, the respondent gave birth to a female child-Omisa. The respondent as customary went to her parental house, for taking rest post delivery, who had by then shifted to Bengaluru upon her father's retirement. During February/March 2003, the appellant behaved violently after an argument in presence of her (respondent's) mother. He threatened to walk away with the baby and used unbecoming language which left her completely devastated. The incident has left an indelible mark of pain and has been rankling in her memory. Ever since the incident, the respondent has been in the constant fear that appellant will snatch her daughter Omisa away from her by force. During May, 2003, both the appellant/husband purchased an apartment in the National Games Complex Village, Koramangala and the respondent was intending to invite her friends and relatives to celebrate the event, but the appellant/husband was totally against the idea and hence, only a brief house warming ceremony with a few close family members was conducted. The husband wanted to invite his cousin to see their house. The respondent/wife was against the idea because of the fear that his cousin's child might wreck things in the house. The respondent's insistence was rewarded by an angry outburst followed by a slap on her cheek late in the night unmindful of the hour. He called the respondent's parents and asked them to take their daughter away. The respondent was embarrassed and humiliated by the incident. It was also contended that the daughter was one year old and the appellant insisted her that she be admitted to a day-care centre even if the grand parents of both sides were more willing to take care of the child while the couple were at work, but the respondent was against the same. However, she was forced to go along with it. Some time in August/September, 2003 after the couple returned from work, when the respondent was trying to feed Omisa, she did not eat. However, she was forced to go along with it. Some time in August/September, 2003 after the couple returned from work, when the respondent was trying to feed Omisa, she did not eat. Hence, the respondent asked the appellant to check whether the child had been fed at the day care centre or not, for which the appellant answered that, he was not aware and instructed her to call the day care instructor. Although the appellant had finished his dinner while the respondent had just got back from office, he refused to make the call. While the respondent was playing with the child, he rushed into the room shouting abuses and began assaulting her as she did not make the call. In September, 2003, owing to the appellant's negligence, the respondent conceived yet again. The respondent had earlier impressed upon the appellant for safe and long term contraception, which did not pay heed. As a result, the respondent had to go for an abortion for a third time in five years, due to which, her health deteriorated during the said period. She underwent tests at the St. John's Hospital and subsequently, at Sagar Apollo Hospital where she was diagnosed that she was suffering from stomach disorder on account of severe stress. It was the further case of the respondent before the Family Court that in the month of August, 2004 her mother came to live with the couple for a few days to help her by taking care of the child, for which, the appellant was unhappy. He constantly complained and when the respondent protested by telling him that her mother had come only to help them, he became violent and assaulted her and also threatened that he would kill her mother. The respondent's mother, however, became aware of the incident. She was also pained by the said attitude. Indeed, he behaved with her rudely and referred her in an unseemly and crude language in his outburst with the respondent. It was then the respondent decided that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and decided to part away. Thereafter, she moved out of the matrimonial home. After few days, the appellant sent her an e-mail apologising his behaviour for the last six years of marriage, admitting his cruel nature. The respondent's mother was greatly depressed by the turn of events and by the appellant's unruly and barbaric behaviours. Thereafter, she moved out of the matrimonial home. After few days, the appellant sent her an e-mail apologising his behaviour for the last six years of marriage, admitting his cruel nature. The respondent's mother was greatly depressed by the turn of events and by the appellant's unruly and barbaric behaviours. Indeed she fell ill and died of heart attack. The respondent and her family had been put to untold misery on account of the cruelty meted out by the appellant. The respondent has suffered the violence from the appellant/husband. He had deliberately forced the respondent to take money from her father to pay the initial deposit to purchase the apartment though he had enough money in his own name in a fixed deposit. Because of these attitude of the appellant, the respondent has suffered mental disorder to such an extent that no reasonable person can be expected to live with him. Therefore, she filed a divorce petition before the Court below. 3. The appellant/husband, who was respondent before the Family Court filed objections to the petition admitting educational qualifications of both parties, about the marriage and birth of child and denied all the other allegations made in the petition. He contended that he is not suffering from any mental disorder as alleged by her; the allegations made against him are defamatory in nature; he wants to take criminal action against the respondent/wife. He also contended that he is ready to subject himself to any medical examination before any of the medical authorities. The wife is suffering from mental disorders which always caused him to suffer but the appellant always loved her dearly and always danced to her tunes. The appellant had hundreds of letters of accolades, appreciation, praise, pride, encouragement and collaboration from stalwarts and leaders in the society and the industry and all walks of life. He had been even invited to deliver guest lectures at such altars of knowledge and excellence as the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. He had also been invited and persuaded to associate with some of the top universities of the world. He has coauthored or contributed to books by luminaries including a recent one on using IT for Human Development which the petitioner herself had proudly shown off to her friends and relatives. He had also been invited and persuaded to associate with some of the top universities of the world. He has coauthored or contributed to books by luminaries including a recent one on using IT for Human Development which the petitioner herself had proudly shown off to her friends and relatives. The appellant's last employer was one of the world's top three companies in the area of qualities in software and knowledge industry which had certified the appellant's company, had heaped recognition on him. All these would clearly reveal that the appellant was not suffering from any mental disorders as alleged by the respondent and the respondent is taking advantage of her own wrong. On these grounds he contended that the respondent is not entitled to any relief and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Based on the pleadings, the Family Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the applicant is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty, harassment and unsound mind of her husband. (ii) What order. 5. In order to establish her case, the wife examined herself as P.W.1 and a witness as P.W.2 and marked the documents - Exs.P.1 to 11. In order to disprove the case of wife, the husband examined himself as R.W.1 and produced the documents which were marked as Exs.R.1 to 12. After considering the entire material on record, the Family Court recorded a finding that on account of cruelty and harassment, the respondent is suffering mental disorder and hence, the respondent is entitled for divorce under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The decree is granted on 13.12.2010 against which, the present appeal is filed by the husband. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Smt. Pramila M. Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Hemanth Kumar. D., for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is contrary to the evidence on record and the Court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant though belonged to Lingayath Community, had the habit of consuming non vegetarian food. Since the respondent belonged to Jain Community, she was a vegetarian. Consuming non-vegetarian food amounts to cruelty. Since the respondent belonged to Jain Community, she was a vegetarian. Consuming non-vegetarian food amounts to cruelty. She further contended that the Family Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was forced to undergo abortion against her will, but Ex.R.2 clearly goes to show that the respondent had given her consent and had sent the signed form for causing abortion for which the appellant is a witness to the consent form. She further contended that the conclusion reached by the Family Court granting decree of divorce against the appellant is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record and the same cannot be sustained. She further contended that though the respondent has not proved that the appellant is suffering from incurable mental disease, she is not entitled to any relief under Section 13(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court ought not to have granted the decree of divorce against the appellant and therefore, she sought to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court. In support of her contentions, she relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 (1). 8. Per contra, Sri. Arun Govindaraj for Sri. L. Govindaraj, learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree. He contended that the averments made in Exs.P.2, P.3, the emails sent by the husband apologizing his behaviour to his wife are not denied by the husband. The wife in her petition before the Family Court at para-5 has specifically stated as to how she was mentally and physically harassed by the respondent which amounts to cruelty. The said facts have not been denied. R.W. 1 has admitted that the marital counselling was advised; that the evidence and pleadings clearly indicate that he has apoligised for the same; after filing of the petition in the year 2005 till today, both the parties are residing separately and there is no chance for re-union. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: (a) Vinita Sazena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1662 ). In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: (a) Vinita Sazena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778 : ( AIR 2006 SC 1662 ). (b) Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 (c) K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2176 ) and sought to dismiss the appeal. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 10. The inter-caste love marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.3.1998; out of the wedlock, a daughter by name Omisa was born on 7.7.2002; the appellant and respondent belong to different communities. These facts are not in dispute. It is an undisputed fact that both the appellant and the respondent are highly educated and over trivial matters, they are apart from each other. It is also an admitted fact that on three occasions, the respondent's pregnancy was aborted by consent of both parties. 11. In order to establish her case, the respondent herein has examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the petition averments in the examination-in-chief and deposed on oath that even during her pregnancy, the appellant did not let her to stay in her parental place as per custom, despite her parents being in the same city inasmuch as they had moved to Bangalore after retirement. However, post deliver), the elders came to her rescue and ensured that she had rest at her parental home with her new born baby. During one of his visits to her parental house, he had a violent argument with her even when she was still recovering from the natural delicate health (post-delivery). Though the appellant did not take care of the child, he used to threaten her saying that he would take away the child. Thereby she suffered both mentally and physically. She has stated that in the month of September, 2003, she again conceived since her husband did not take adequate precaution. Once again she went in for a third abortion within 5 years. Hence, her health declined and various ailments began to surface which were diagnosed to have been caused from severe stress. Thereby she suffered both mentally and physically. She has stated that in the month of September, 2003, she again conceived since her husband did not take adequate precaution. Once again she went in for a third abortion within 5 years. Hence, her health declined and various ailments began to surface which were diagnosed to have been caused from severe stress. She further stated that in August, 2004 on 'Varamahalakshmi' day, she was invited to her cousin's home for which the appellant prevented her from attending the event for no particular reason which had hurt her very greatly. Even when her mother came to live with them fora short period in September, 2004 to help them to take care of the child as her health was delicate, the appellant made her uncomfortable. There was an argument followed by violence. Indeed, he had threatened her that he would kill her mother. He used an offensive language in her presence with total disregard for elders which behaviour makes clearly evident that he lacked control over his senses. This deeply saddened her and her mother. The e-mail sent to her later shows his conduct which is produced as Ex.P.3. She has stated on oath that the appellant has sent e-mails apologising the ill-treatment meted out to her and her family members. In fact, he also refused to pay maintenance, which hurt her deeply. The fact that her daughter had a father, who is unwilling to take responsibility, saddened her. Besides he had also refused to pay his share of the loan towards the apartment for almost a year and therefore, she stated that it is impossible for her to live with him on account of cruelty meted out to her. Besides he suffers from mental disorder to such an extent that no person can be expected to live with him. 12. In the entire cross-examination of the respondent herein, nothing has been elicited. In the cross-examination she has specifically denied that she and the appellant went to the Spandana Organisation Centre after the incident. She has also denied the suggestion that the appellant took her to Spandana Nursing Home because she was undergoing depression and the doctor prescribed medicine to her. (Witness volunteers that the doctor prescribed medicine to both of them). She has also denied the fact that the appellant accompanied her to Psychologist only for treatment of migraine. She has also denied the suggestion that the appellant took her to Spandana Nursing Home because she was undergoing depression and the doctor prescribed medicine to her. (Witness volunteers that the doctor prescribed medicine to both of them). She has also denied the fact that the appellant accompanied her to Psychologist only for treatment of migraine. She has also stated that the appellant was having one of the symptoms of migraine. In the cross-examination, she has categorically stated that both of them consulted Dr. Malini at Spandana Nursing Home in regard to marital counselling. The witness volunteers that after the first incident, she does remember the exact date on which they approached Dr. Malini. They might have attended four to five sessions, most of which were attended together. There were sessions where Dr. Malini used to meet them separately. She has stated that it is true that Dr. Malini asked them to live separately; that she followed the advice of Dr. Malini since she had faith in her. She has further stated in her cross-examination that the marriage broke in September, 2004 when the appellant threatened to kill her mother. She has denied the suggestion that till September, 2004, they were leading a happy marital life. She has also denied the suggestion that there are no serious differences between herself and the appellant. 13. The statements made in the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination clearly indicate that she has suffered both mentally and physically and that she is not in a position to live with the appellant and they are separated from September, 2004. The appellant/husband has apologised to the respondent/wife by sending e-mails to her as per Exs.P.2 to P.5 which clearly indicate that the husband had tortured both physically and mentally. 14. The original record discloses that Ex.P.9 dated 2nd October, 1999 and Ex.P.10 dated 12th September, 2004 - psychological testing report received from the Spandana Nursing Home in the name of Mr. Deepak/the appellant that the psychologist had made suggestions to the appellant to meet his mental conditions as follows: "1. Supportive psychotherapy; 2. To consider social skills training; 3. Helping to channelise his oppositional tendencies in a more productive way; 4. Marital therapy" and the psychological report dated 12th September, 2004 as per Ex.P.10 advised the appellant as: "1. Individual therapy; and 2. Marital therapy. Supportive psychotherapy; 2. To consider social skills training; 3. Helping to channelise his oppositional tendencies in a more productive way; 4. Marital therapy" and the psychological report dated 12th September, 2004 as per Ex.P.10 advised the appellant as: "1. Individual therapy; and 2. Marital therapy. It is also relevant to state that Ex.R. 1 - Psychological Testing Report dated 2nd October, 1999 issued in the name of the respondent-S.P. Malini by the Spandana Nursing Home advised: "1. Individual Psychotherapy; and 2. Marital therapy which clearly indicates that the appellant and the respondent are not leading happy marital life. 15. The appellant, who is examined as R.W.l has reiterated the averments made in the objections by way of affidavit of evidence. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he used to take non-vegetarian food and since four to five years, he had stopped taking non-vegetarian food. He has also admitted that the respondent is a vegetarian and that he used to have non vegetarian food on the same table in her presence. He also volunteers that he never had it at home. He has also admitted that he might have gone to Lalbagh Nursing and Maternity Home at Bengaluru on 8.9.2003 along with the respondent/wife. He also admits his signatures put on Exs.P.5 and 6 (Medical Abortion Form)/Patient's Agreement Form for Abortion issued by the Lalbagh Nursing Maternity Home dated 8.9.2003 as Ex.P.5 (a). He has also admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant and the respondent went to Spandana Nursing Home and that he was subject to some test; that he was not aware whether the test undergone is the same as that of the respondent; that he was having migraine headache. He has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that they have separated from each other by the end of the year 2004 which might be in the month of September, 2004 and the marital counsellor advised them to live separately for some time; that the marital counsellor asked the appellant to move away from the marital house for some time. The appellant has further admitted in the cross-examination that it is true that after moving from the marital home, he had written letters to the respondent/wife apologising for his behaviour by promising that he would become a reformed man. The appellant has further admitted in the cross-examination that it is true that after moving from the marital home, he had written letters to the respondent/wife apologising for his behaviour by promising that he would become a reformed man. He has also admitted that his email I.D. was Deepak K alias Software Dioxide.com., and that Exs.P.7 and 8 are the emails sent by him to his wife. 16. It is an undisputed fact that the emails were sent by the appellant to the wife apologising his past behaviour. That he wants to be come a reformed man has been admitted by him in the cross-examination. It is also an undisputed fact that from the year 2004 till today, for more than 11 years, the appellant and the respondent are living separately. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for both parties to the lis that on four occasions, efforts made before the Mediation Centre to settle the matter and for reunion between the parties have failed. 17. It is settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case. 18. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined and it has been used in relation 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 and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or 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. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or 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. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture and human values to which they attach importance. 19. Admittedly in the present case, at the instance of the appellant, on two occasions, the respondent/wife had given her consent for abortion as per Exs.P.5 and 6. She has specifically stated in her cross-examination that she was forced to have abortions on three occasions within a period of 5 years and the emails sent by him admitting his behaviour clearly indicate that the respondent/wife has suffered both mentally and physically amounting to cruelty. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is sound and proper. 20. It is not in dispute that both the parties are admitting that they are fighting over several trivial issues and both are suffering from same kind of depression as suggested by the psychologist as per Exs.P.9, 10 and R.1. The parties to the proceedings are residing separately since September, 2004 i.e; for more than 11 years which has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. Since the wife is seeking for divorce and is refusing to go back to her husband, in the circumstances, continuation of marital relationship would yield futile result, since the marriage has irretrievably broken down. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 13(1 )(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2176 , Paras 25 to 29) has specifically held at paragraphs-30 to 35 as under: "30. It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree. 32. In V. Bhagat ( AIR 1994 SC 710 ) this Court noted that divorce petition was pending for eight years and a good part of the lives of both the parties had been consumed in litigation, yet the end was not in sight. The facts were such that there was no question of reunion, the marriage having irretrievably broken down. While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty this Court observed that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself, but, while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and in determining the relief to be granted the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. 33. In Naveen Kohli ( AIR 2006 SC 1675 ), where husband and wife had been living separately for more than 10 years and a large number of criminal proceedings had been initiated by the wife against the husband, this Court observed that the marriage had been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage and public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. It is important to note that in Naveen Kohli's case this Court made a recommendation to the Union of India that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be amended to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. 34. In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondent-wife has caused by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellant-husband and the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain and anguish. In this Court the respondent-wife expressed that she wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is not possible now. The appellant-husband is not willing to take her back. Even if we refuse decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, there are hardly any chances of the respondent-wife leading a happy life with the appellant-husband because a lot of bitterness is created by the conduct of the respondent-wife. 35. In Vijay Kumar ( AIR 2003 SC 2462 ), it was submitted that if the decree of divorce is set aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope for reconciliation between parties. This Court observed that judged in the background of all surrounding circumstances, the claim appeared to be too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or aim. In the facts of this case we feel the same." 22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is well crafted based on the cogent legal evidence on record. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the same in the Miscellaneous First Appeal under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1986. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.