ORDER : Navin Sinha, J. 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 18/01/2014 passed by the Family Judge No. 1, Jaipur in Case No. 28 of 2013 dismissing the application for divorce filed by the Appellant on grounds of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Family Judge erred in holding that any event prior to the year 2005 was not relevant to decide the issue of cruelty. Merely because there may have been a compromise subsequently and the parties lived as man and wife from 2005 till 2011 it will not wash off the earlier cruel conduct of the Respondent. There was a consistency and perpetuation of cruel behaviour by the Respondent prior to 2005 and continuation even thereafter. She would invariably leave the matrimonial house without information causing mental agony to the Appellant which naturally affected safe discharge of duties by him as a driver in the Railways. His peace of mind was disturbed and anything serious could have happened. The fact that no specific date may have been mentioned in support of the averment for cruelty was not relevant as it was a course of conduct by the Respondent affecting mental equilibrium and peace of the appellant. He had entered into the compromise with the Respondent in the hope that she would change her ways. Unfortunately she did not do so and continued to leave the matrimonial house at will. The institution of a criminal case by her under Section 498A and other provisions of the Penal Code leading to the Appellant having to seek bail were also instances of cruelty. The Respondent had contended before the Family Judge that the Appellant was cruel in behaviour towards her chiding her for inability to bear a child and assault her in a drunken condition. It is incomprehensible why she wants to return to the cruel behaviour of the Appellant by contending that she was desirous to return to the matrimonial home. This demonstrates the falsity of her allegations. It is denied that the Appellant ever mentioned that he wanted to remarry because of her inability to conceive further or that he had suggested marriage to her younger sister for that reason. 3. This demonstrates the falsity of her allegations. It is denied that the Appellant ever mentioned that he wanted to remarry because of her inability to conceive further or that he had suggested marriage to her younger sister for that reason. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the parties were living together from 2005 to 2011 after compromise but his behaviour towards her did not change. The allegations under Section 498A IPC lost much of its relevance after the subsequent compromise. The Respondent has a 13 years old daughter born from the marriage to look after. She is therefore keen and desirous for revival of matrimonial harmony. 4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties, perused the materials and evidence on record. 5. The parties were married on 28/04/1999. A girl child was born from the wedlock on 02/09/2000 at the Navjeevan Hospital, Kala Kuan, District Alwar within the jurisdiction of the matrimonial house of the respondent. Indisputably due to certain gynecological complications the uterus of the Respondent had to be removed at this time. There is no material on record medically. The Respondent is alleged to have left the matrimonial home voluntarily in February 2001. The Appellant filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act on 19/02/2001. Contrary to the pleadings in the divorce petition that the Respondent left the matrimonial home in February, 2001, in the latter it was stated that she left the matrimonial home on 28/10/2000. An ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted on 24/04/2002 after the Respondent did not appear despite paper publication. The Appellant never informed the Respondent and also took no steps for enforcement of the same. 6. On 19/05/2001, the Respondent lodged a criminal prosecution under Section 498A IPC. The Appellant was granted bail on 10/09/2001. In the 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings a compromise was arrived at on 21/07/2004. Consequently, the criminal prosecution never saw the light of the day and in view of the said development was quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 837/2004 dated 04/02/2005. Consequently, the parties started to live together from the year 2005 and did so till the year 2011 when they again parted ways. 7. Petition No. 837/2004 dated 04/02/2005. Consequently, the parties started to live together from the year 2005 and did so till the year 2011 when they again parted ways. 7. There are allegations of ill-treatment by the Appellant during this period towards the Respondent of drunken misbehaviour, chiding her for inability to conceive further suggesting remarriage with the sister of the respondent. Equally significant is the fact of birth of the girl child on 02/09/2000. 8. According to the Appellant, the Respondent left the matrimonial home in his absence on 27/09/2011 while he was on duty at Ujjain and refused to return despite his request to do so. The only ground urged in the petition for divorce was cruelty and not desertion. 9. Cruelty finds no definition in the Act. Its meaning and connotation cannot be decided and considered in the abstract but will have to be deciphered in the facts of each case. Cruelty in behaviour essentially means a conduct of a nature in personal relations which is of such a character, magnitude and recurrence making it not merely difficult but impossible for one spouse to live day to day with the other. In other words, it not only creates a fear of harm physically but causes such mental stress and agony that it shatters the personality morale and humanity of the other spouse. It has its impact on the mental state of the other spouse creating a sense of abhorrence, fear and not simply an inability to co-exist with each other. Any marriage would have differences of opinion, thinking and behaviour. Such conduct would not by itself tantamount to cruelty. While a single instance of cruelty may be sufficient in certain situations, in others, it may be a course of conduct which creates and constitutes cruelty. It is therefore not possible to give it a precise definition. In (1975) 2 SCC 326 (N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane) it was observed:- "34......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......" 10. 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......" 10. In (2007) 4 SCC 511 : Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh dealing with the term mental cruelty it was observed as follows:- "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." 11. The Appellant filed an application for divorce alleging cruelty in behaviour against the Respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The burden of proof is upon the person who goes to court making an allegation. Any defence that the Respondent may have taken with regard to the behaviour of the Appellant cannot be of relevance to decide if divorce ought to be granted. Significantly the Respondent gave birth to a girl child and her uterus had to be removed. That trouble in the marriage started immediately thereafter cannot be ignored. The Respondent lost the ability to conceive thereafter. Social mores and expectations cannot be ignored at this stage as law and life run together. The Appellant despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights took no steps for enforcement of the same. Faced with a criminal case he entered into a compromise but continued to chide her for inability to conceive and the futility of physical relations with her suggesting marriage with her sister. The Appellant despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights took no steps for enforcement of the same. Faced with a criminal case he entered into a compromise but continued to chide her for inability to conceive and the futility of physical relations with her suggesting marriage with her sister. The fact that the Respondent intermittently left the matrimonial home and finally left permanently cannot constitute cruelty as rightly held by the Family Judge. The Appellant cannot take advantage of his own conduct compelling a behaviour by the Respondent and then make it a ground for divorce if it could be said to constitute a ground. 12. Section 23 of the Act in its relevant extract reads as follows :- "23. Decree in proceedings.-(1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that- (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of Section 5] is not in anyway taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief," 13. The application for divorce was filed on grounds of cruelty only under Section 13(1)(ia) and no relief was sought on grounds of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. 14. We have no reason to arrive at any different conclusion than that of the Family Judge that the Appellant had failed to establish cruelty for grant of a decree of divorce in the entirety of the facts and circumstances. 15. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed.