JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Matrimonial Appeal is at the instance of the appellant-husband (petitioner in the court below) as against the respondent-wife (Opp. party in the court below) challenging the judgment dated 16.5.2011passed by the Judge, Family Court, Puri in C.P.No.229 of 2010 dismissing the proceeding for divorce initiated by the appellant. 2. Short back ground involved in the case is that the appellant-husband instituted C.P.No.229 of 2010 against the respondent-wife praying therein for dissolution of marriage dated 24.4.1993 by a decree of divorce. Facts as appearing from the pleadings of the parties and submissions made in the Court are that the appellant had married the respondent on 24.4.1993 following Hindu rites and custom. While both were living as husband and wife, a male child was born out of their wed-lock. It is the allegation of the appellant that respondent was an adamant, quarrelsome lady, used to misbehave him always and also used to assault his mother. Under compelling situation and being forced by the respondent, he was staying separately from his parents in rented house from time to time in the village -Kundhei. While continuing as such, the appellant purchased a Tractor for his livelihood but subsequently for his suffering from Arthritis was unable to manage the Tractor, consequently sold the said tractor. Finding the appellant having no income and during the period of his hard days and misery, the respondent deserted the appellant and shifted to her father’s house along with the son and resided there since 2002.The appellant further alleged that his efforts to bring the respondent back to his home went in vain. Finally on 24.04.2003 when the respondent flatly refused to come back to the house of the appellant and thereby deserted the appellant, the appellant was compelled to file the C.P.No.229 of 2010 seeking a decree of divorce. 3. On her appearance, the respondent filed written statement. In the written statement while admitting her marriage with the appellant, fact of shifting to rented house and having blessed with a son, the respondent denied the story of ill treatment to her husband as well as the allegation of assault to the appellant’s mother. She also flatly denied the allegation of her deserting the appellant. In her further response, the respondent contended that the appellant is a habitual drunkard and gets pleasure by beating and assaulting her mercilessly. She also flatly denied the allegation of her deserting the appellant. In her further response, the respondent contended that the appellant is a habitual drunkard and gets pleasure by beating and assaulting her mercilessly. In the guise of arranging money for purchasing a Tractor, the appellant left her at her father’s house and never made any attempt to bring her back. It is further pleaded by the respondent that inspite of such an attitude of the appellant, she came back to the appellant’s house, tried to stay/live with the appellant but the vices of the appellant could not be amended. While the matter continued as such, the appellant finally drove her out of his house on 27.5.2005. It is further alleged by the respondent that after driving her out, the appellant started living with another woman namely Rita Tarai compelling the respondent to institute a criminal case against the appellant and others, which matter is still subjudice in the Court of J.M.F.C, Nimapara. 4. In order to substantiate their respective stand in C.P.No.229 of 2010, the appellant as well as the respondent examined themselves as witness, exhibited and proved some documents in support of their respective side. After considering the pleadings of the parties and materials available on record as well as oral and documentary evidence from both sides, the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri dismissed the C.P.No.229 of 2010 at the instance of the appellant observing that the appellant not only failed to prove his case on the question of cruelty but also observed that the appellant even tried to patch up his own wrong in keeping a second woman as his wife at his residence in the existence of a valid marriage. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the same is illegal, erroneous and against the weight of evidence. The Judge, Family Court, Puri miserably failed to take note of the fact that the respondent not only remained adamant but also was a wicked and quarrelsome lady and also failed to take note of the developments taken place in the matter on the intervention of local gentries resolving the dispute between the parties by entering into a PANCHAYAT PATRA resolving all disputes between the parties. The Family Court also failed to take note of the attempt of Mahila Commissioner for compromise of the dispute between the parties. The Family Court also failed to take note of the attempt of Mahila Commissioner for compromise of the dispute between the parties. It is also contended by the appellant that the impugned judgment suffers on account of non-consideration of the evidence of the appellant for establishing the case in his favour. The respondent through her counsel on the other hand while justifying the lower court judgment submitted that the allegation of cruelty and assault by the husband could not be proved. For the reasons assigned therein, there is no scope for interfering in the impugned judgment and the appeal should be dismissed. 6. In entertaining the Appeal, this Court directed for issuance of notice for appearance of the respondent. After appearance of the respondent and during pendency of the appeal, considering the fact that both parties are in their prime youth, this Court attempted for conciliation between the parties. In the process, by order dated 19.6.2014, this Court appointed Mr.B.K.Ragada, learned counsel of the Bar as Mediator to have a mediation between the parties. On being appointed, the learned Mediator took up the matter and submitted a report before this Court on 28.7.2014 intimating therein to the effect that mediation failed due to disagreement by the respondent, leaving no scope for this Court to record failure of conciliation between the parties and to finally adjudicate the matter on merit. 7. Before we critically examine the impugned judgment in the light of settled law and taking into consideration the provision of law in the Act, it has become imperative to understand and comprehend the concept of cruelty. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'cruelty' as 'the quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another's pain; mercilessness; hard-heartedness'. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'cruelty' as 'the quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another's pain; mercilessness; hard-heartedness'. The term "mental cruelty" has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary [8th Edition, 2004] as under: "Mental Cruelty -As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse." The concept of cruelty has been summarized in Halsbury's Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269] as under: "The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits." 12. In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as under: "Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse’s life miserable and unendurable. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits." 12. In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as under: "Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse’s life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse." In the instant case, our main endeavor would be to define broad parameters of the concept of 'mental cruelty'. Thereafter, we would strive to determine whether the instances of mental cruelty enumerated in this case by the appellant would cumulatively be adequate to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty according to the settled legal position as crystallized by a number of cases of this Court and other Courts. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 in Paragraphs-x has held as follows: “(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 behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. In the case of Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 S.C.R.607 it has been held in; Paragraph-17 as under :- “17. The expression ‘cruelty’ has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. In Siraj Mohamed khan Jan mohamad khan v. Hafizunnisa Yasin khan and another, a two-19 Judge Bench approved the concept of legal cruelty as expounded in Smt. Pancho v. Ram Prasad, wherein it was stated thus:-“Conception of legal cruelty undergoes changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. In Siraj Mohamed khan Jan mohamad khan v. Hafizunnisa Yasin khan and another, a two-19 Judge Bench approved the concept of legal cruelty as expounded in Smt. Pancho v. Ram Prasad, wherein it was stated thus:-“Conception of legal cruelty undergoes changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. With the advancement of our social conceptions, this feature has obtained legislative recognition that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for separate residence and separate maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment, Cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which may undermine the health of a wife.” It is apt to note here that the said observations were made while dealing with the Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (19 of 1946). This Court, after reproducing the passage, has observed that the learned Judge has put his finger on the correct aspect and object of mental cruelty.” 8. Considering the submissions raised by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, this Court finds that the appellant has filed the case for divorce solely attributing allegation of cruelty and desertion at the instance of the respondent with specific allegation that the respondent deserted him during his hardship and misery days and deserted him on her own volition. The appellant has also raised a pleading that there is a flat denial by the respondent on the attempt of appellant for bringing her back to his house. The appellant, appearing himself as sole witness, apart from adducing oral evidence to the above effect, has also brought some material documents to establish that there has been some documents to establish dissensions between the parties. The respondent on the other hand, while pleading that the allegation of ill treatment to the husband and assault to her mother-in-law are all false, alleged that her husband is a habitual drunkard, gets pleasure by assaulting her mercilessly and drove her out from his residence. Inspite of such attitude of the husband, in order to bring peace in the family, she returned back to the husband’s house but all her such attempts went invain. Inspite of such attitude of the husband, in order to bring peace in the family, she returned back to the husband’s house but all her such attempts went invain. In order to establish such allegations, the respondent examining herself as R.W.No.1 and proved two documents in her favour marked as Exts. A and B involving the appellant in G.R. Case No.318 of 2005. 9. Scanning of the entire pleadings, this Court nowhere finds that the appellant has brought out any specific allegation of cruelty against the respondent. Even there is no proving of allegation of cruelty or desertion. This Court only finds the pleading involving rival accusations against each other and also unconvincing oral testimony making an effort to corroborate their such pleadings. In absence of any specific pleading and evidence with regard to cruelty by the respondent, this Court finds no error in the observations of the Judge, Family Court, Puri. On the other hand, this Court finds that there is a clear observation of the Judge, Family Court, Puri to the effect that from the documents produced by the respondent vide Exts. A and B, there is already a Charge sheet against the appellant under Sections.498(A)/494/34,I.P.C. There is also a Panchayat Settlement asking both of them to stay together. Looking to the further fact that though the appellant brought the respondent back to his house but put her in a cowshed built by his father and at the same time the appellant stayed with another lady namely Rita Tarei. 10. Taking note of the meaning of word ‘cruelty’ and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore mentioned citations, this Court observes that the appellant had not approached the Family Court with clean hands. Consequently this Court finds that the appellant has seriously failed in establishing his allegation of cruelty as against the respondent, thereby leaving no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment of the Family Court. 11. Considering that the parties are in no mood of reunion and since the appellant is not ready and willing to take back the respondent to his house, this Court while dismissing the appeal, feel it prudent to look into the survival of the respondent who admittedly is not only having no income for her survival but also forced to stay with her parent along with her son. Looking to the market price index, cost requirement for at least leading a normal life by a woman with her son, considering that the matrimonial proceeding was initiated in the year 2010 and this Matrimonial Appeal is decided in the year, 2016 and the wife – respondent has suffered all through, this Court directs the appellant to pay arrear maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) per month from the date of institution of C.P.No.229 of 2010 till 16.5.2011 and at the rate of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) per month from 17.5.2011 till the date of this judgment and will go on paying maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) per month hereafter. The payment of current maintenance must be maid by the end of first week of the succeeding month. The arrear maintenance at the rate indicated herein above is directed to be released in favour of the respondent within six months from the date of this judgment in two equal installments. 12. Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed but with the terms and directions made hereinabove. Parties are to bear their respective cost.