ORDER : Navin Sinha, J. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 01.12.2015 and is listed today for orders on the stay application. The lower court records are available. With consent of the Counsel for the parties the matter has been finally heard at this stage itself. 2. The appeal arises from decree of divorce granted to the Respondent by the Family Judge No.2, Jodhpur dated 08.10.2015 in Civil Case No.152/2015 on grounds of cruelty. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that she is alleged to have deserted the matrimonial home on 22.10.2011. Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') mandates that the desertion must have continued for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The divorce application filed on 17.07.2012 before expiry of the statutory period was not maintainable. The allegation of cruelty whether mental or by denial of sexual relations had not been established or proved in accordance with law. Both sides were represented by their respective Counsel. The appellant's lawyer did not appear and neither did he inform her the dates leading to an ex-parte decree against her. She cannot be allowed to suffer because of the laches of her Counsel. Her reply denying the allegations expressing her intentions to continue the matrimonial relationship has not been considered at all. The fact that she had conceived immediately after the marriage but suffered abortion of a five months old foetus because it was a girl child revealed in sonography alone demolishes the entire allegations of her inability for sexual relations due to any gynaecological issues. She was denied proper treatment after abortion. The ex-parte decree may be set aside and the matter remanded to the Family Judge for fresh decision after taking her evidence also. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the divorce suit was not filed on grounds of desertion and no such issue was framed much less any finding given. The Appellant had caused him mental cruelty by levelling false allegations with regard to his infidelity and extra marital relations with his female colleagues. He was insulted in presence of his sisters and brother-in-laws and friends with regard to his character. The Appellant had caused him mental cruelty by levelling false allegations with regard to his infidelity and extra marital relations with his female colleagues. He was insulted in presence of his sisters and brother-in-laws and friends with regard to his character. The Appellant suffered from Miliary Tuber Clauses disease in her female organ leading to lumps in her fallopian tube, Ovary and Uterus since before marriage which rendered her incapable of sexual relations, a fact that was concealed from him before marriage. She also suffered from Cytomega Lovirus which was a herpes virus and could infect the Appellant endangering him also. It is difficult to accept that she was not in touch with her lawyer. The Family Judge ordered the proceedings ex-parte on 24.08.2015. The Appellant had adequate opportunity to appear on 09.06.2015, 09.07.2015, 01.08.2015 or even thereafter till the date of the order. No application was filed before the Family Judge for recall of the ex-parte order. Any order of remand at this stage will only cause harassment to the Respondent and give an advantage to the Appellant for her own laches depriving the Appellant of the fruits of the decree. The Respondent had led his evidence and that of another witness in support of the allegations. The order under Appeal therefore calls for no interference. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and have also been taken through the Lower Court records. 6. No issue was framed with regard to desertion and neither did the Respondent allege the same or lead evidence in respect thereof. The submission that the suit was filed before expiry of the statutory period therefore merits no consideration. 7. The Appellant was represented by a lawyer and had filed her reply also denying the allegations asserting her desire to save the matrimonial relationship. After the matter was transferred from the Court of Family Judge No.1, Jodhpur to the Court of Family Judge No.2 on 13.02.2015 her lawyer stopped appearing and did not bother to inform her. The Family Judge unfortunately did not apply his mind to the desirability for issuance of notice to the Appellant for protection of her interests. There is no reason why the Appellant would have been so negligent in the opportunity to save her marriage. She had also filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act on 22.04.2015. 8. There is no reason why the Appellant would have been so negligent in the opportunity to save her marriage. She had also filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act on 22.04.2015. 8. The parties were married on 21.04.2007. The Appellant conceived early after the marriage but had to suffer abortion in November, 2007. This undisputed fact demolishes the entire case of the Respondent that the Appellant suffered from any gynaecological problem from since before the marriage rendering her incapable of sexual relations. The fact that she may have had to suffer abortion and may have been unable to conceive thereafter is an entirely different matter. Any inability to conceive in the facts of the case can neither be classified as either cruelty or lead to any inference for incapacity to have sexual relations as noticed in (2007) 4 SCC 511 (Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh) quoting Lord Denning. It is difficult to accept that the Respondent was deprived of sexual relations from November, 2007 and kept quiet till 22.10.2011 when the Appellant left the matrimonial home and shifted to Churu. The Suit for divorce was filed only thereafter belatedly on 17.07.2012 inter alia alleging denial of sexual relations. The abortion undoubtedly would have been a painful experience for the Appellant and she needed support from the Respondent especially if it had caused complications. Instead of standing by her side the Respondent found it convenient to level baseless allegations against her displaying insensitivity and taking advantage of her as pain as observed in (2010) 13 SCC 298 (Neelam Kumar v. Dayarani) as follows :- "8.....The High Court pointed out that the miscarriage would have caused the greatest distress and pain to the respondent and instead of sympathising with her, the appellant chose the incident to cite as an instance of her cruelty. This showed not the cruelty of the respondent but the complete insensitivity of the appellant himself....." 9. Even if the Appellant was not represented and there was no cross-examination of the Respondent the onus still lay on the Respondent to prove the medical condition of the Appellant especially when he levelled specific medical terminology, by either producing medical prescriptions or examining the doctor in question. Even if the Appellant was not represented and there was no cross-examination of the Respondent the onus still lay on the Respondent to prove the medical condition of the Appellant especially when he levelled specific medical terminology, by either producing medical prescriptions or examining the doctor in question. In absence of the same, and the earlier conception, the Respondent cannot be said to have established the inability of the Appellant for sexual relations either before or after marriage. No evidence was led with regard to the allegation of her being infected by Herpes virus also. 10. Mental cruelty is incapable of any precise definition and its meaning and purport will depend on facts of each case including the nature of the cruelty alleged. It connotes a conduct which makes it impossible and not merely difficult for a party to live with the other. It is a wilful and unjustifiable conduct or behaviour where each day in the company of the other becomes a trauma leading to a mental state much higher than what may be called simply harassment affecting daily life and pursuits. It may also involve danger to life, limb, health, bodily or mental or give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. Minor differences of opinion, issues of adjustment with each other cannot be equated to cruelty as observed in (1975) 2 SCC 326 (N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane) as under :- "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." "50.... 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." "50.... However, learned counsel for the respondent is right in stressing the warning given by Denning, L.J. in Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky that : "If the door of cruelty were opened too wide, we should soon find ourselves granting divorce for incompatibility of temperament. This is an easy path to tread, especially in undefended cases. The temptation must be resisted lest we slip into a state of affairs where the institution of marriage itself is imperilled." 11. The burden lies on the person alleging cruelty to prove the same by leading evidence in support. The fact that according to the Respondent the behaviour of the Appellant was not like it should have been of a wife, an idealistic opinion, cannot constitute cruelty. Human failings will exist in any individual. A marriage has to be worked by compromises and adjustments. It involves a give and take relationship. Looking for the ideal wife cannot constitute cruelty. 12. The Respondent did not lead evidence of any female colleague who may have been insulted by the Appellant over the phone much less name such female colleague. He contended loss of business as an insurance agent due to her conduct because of which his customer base had allegedly shrunk but did not lead any evidence in support of fall in income or which named customer had refused to deal with him for that reason. The allegations were therefore bald in nature and unsubstantiated. Despite the fact that the Appellant alleged insult in presence of his two sisters and their husbands he did not consider it necessary to lead their evidence. The neighbours are alleged to have come to the house of the Respondent because of the alleged ruckus behaviour of the Appellant but no person has been named or evidence led. The sole witness, his friend, on the contrary stated that the Respondent had told him of the Appellants behaviour and not that he was a witness to any such incident. 13. On the contrary the Respondent in his pleadings stated that the witness had told him that his wife was a very nice person and that he should look after her well. 13. On the contrary the Respondent in his pleadings stated that the witness had told him that his wife was a very nice person and that he should look after her well. The Family Judge noticed the reply of the Appellant but completely failed to deal with the same much less put any questions to the Respondent with regard to the same. The absence of the Appellant and failure to lead her evidence in denial or to cross examine the Respondent does not automatically and ipso facto lead to an inevitable, inescapable and conclusive opinion or finding that the allegations as made stood established. 14. A matrimonial proceeding for divorce under the Family Courts Act is regulated by statutory provisions but the rigours of the law of evidence has been relaxed under Section 10(3) giving vast discretion to a Family Court for laying down its own procedure to ascertain the truth on the facts alleged by one and denied by the other. The proceeding under the Family Courts Act cannot be put at par with a property dispute, a money claim, a commercial dispute or a service matter. It involves the life of two human beings who had entered into a sacred relationship which in-turn leads to the establishment of familial bonds between two families. If this sacred relationship gets disturbed, it severely affects the two actors directly in their daily life and has its repercussions beyond them on the familial bonds also. An issue with regard to a matrimonial relationship having gone sour has to be dealt with great sensitivity and humane touch by a Family Judge. A cut and dry approach devoid of humane sensitivity, treating it as a routine litigation can have very serious consequences and repercussions on the parties and may even lead to extreme behaviour detrimental to human life of one of them cannot be ruled out. The hurt and passion in such cases is far deeper than a normal human disruption or being let down by a friend or employer or loss of property. It shatters the world of the aggrieved and takes away rationality in thinking leading to impulsive behaviour. 15. The observations in (1997) 11 SCC 701 (Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh) are considered relevant :- "9. A petition for divorce is not like any other commercial suit. It shatters the world of the aggrieved and takes away rationality in thinking leading to impulsive behaviour. 15. The observations in (1997) 11 SCC 701 (Balwinder Kaur v. Hardeep Singh) are considered relevant :- "9. A petition for divorce is not like any other commercial suit. A divorce not only affects the parties, their children, if any, and their families but the society also feels its reverberations. Stress should always be on preserving the institution of marriage...." 16. The Family Judge unfortunately considered the matter mechanically without sensitivity and did not even bother to notice the fact that she had conceived immediately after the marriage and discuss it in the background of the allegations that the Appellant suffered from gynaecological problems since before marriage, was incapable of physical relations, and that the alleged incapacity was concealed from the Respondent. Not an iota of evidence was led by the Respondent in this regard and yet the Family Judge asked no questions. 17. The Family Judge did not even consider it necessary to discuss what constitutes mental cruelty and that the ingredients of the same stood satisfied. Unfortunately, the Family Judge has given a short shrift to the entire proceedings declining to apply his individual mind mandated under Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act to arrive at an easy solution for decision of the case holding that the Appellant had led no evidence when according to the materials available on record the Respondent himself had failed to prove his case. The observations in Hardeep Singh (supra) are very relevant in the facts of the present case :- "15.....We are of the opinion that the court can in such a situation require the personal presence of the parties. Though the proceedings were ex-parte in the case like this the court cannot be a silent spectator and it should itself endeavour to find out the truth by putting questions to the witnesses and eliciting answers from them." 18. The judgment and decree for divorce granted by the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur dated 08.10.2015 is therefore held to be fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed.