JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This is husband’s appeal seeking setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned family Court, Pauri Garhwal, whereby his Suit under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case resulting to the filing of the Suit was that the appellant contended that he was married with the respondent in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 08.10.2000. The marriage thus solemnized between them was conducted in a very simple way and there was no exchange of dowry of any nature and thereafter both husband and wife lived peacefully and enjoyed their matrimonial life without there being any misunderstanding for feud of any nature. 3. Out of the wedlock, two children were born, namely Swayanka, daughter and Swarakya Rawat, son who at the time of institution of the proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act were of 10 years and 9 years of age respectively. 4. According to the husband at the time when the marriage was solemnized, he was working with the Govt. Department and thereafter two years of marriage, the wife too got an employment in the Education Department. Though her posting was at Govt. Janata Inter College, Dangidhar, which according to the appellant was about 25 km. away from their place of residence, to attend her services, the respondent had to commute every working day from Pauri Garhwal to Dangidhar. As per the plaint allegation, the husband’s case was that his parents, who were govt. employees and are now retired and they are residing in a village in Pauri, along with the appellant. Since both husband and wife were working, both the children, who were at the tender stage they were being taken care of by the aged parents despite of the fact that they themselves were suffering from old age problem including the problem of eyes where, the visibility has deteriorated. 5. To assert cruelty, the husband contended that after the birth of children gradually for the reason best known to the respondent the relationship between them started deteriorating and it deteriorated to such an extent that she often got herself engaged in physical assaults and even misbehaving with aged parents thereby she was adopting all atrocious acts to inflect cruelty. 5. To assert cruelty, the husband contended that after the birth of children gradually for the reason best known to the respondent the relationship between them started deteriorating and it deteriorated to such an extent that she often got herself engaged in physical assaults and even misbehaving with aged parents thereby she was adopting all atrocious acts to inflect cruelty. When such a situation became unavoidable, the husband’s case was that he made all efforts to maintain the harmony of the family and when she started even misbehaving with the friends and relatives of the husband, he decide to make a separate arrangement for the residence of the respondent-wife. 6. As a result of which in the same accommodation i.e. the house of the appellant a separate accommodation was provided by the husband to the respondent-wife. According to the husband, since he and his family being one of the respectable member of the society due to this misbehaving attitude of the respondent with the parents and the husband himself and that too when she used to humiliate them in front of the relatives and friends being unaware of the ambiance, this in itself according to the husband will amount to be a cruelty which constitutes to be one of the most plausible grounds for dissolution of marriage. 7. The husband also pleaded that the atrocities of the respondent-wife did not ceased at this juncture, she has gone to such an extent that rather it was highly unexpected when despite of being the mother of growing children, being teacher she even started behaving with the cruelty with the children. She even imposed restrictions upon the children from having any relationship with the grandparents. When all efforts failed to pacify the attitude of the respondent, and when she took the domestic issues on the streets by raising slogans infront of the house with a threat of sending all the family members to jail by roping them in criminal proceedings, the wife as per husband was becoming unbearable to continue in the matrimonial relation. 8. She even at times got aggravated the family issues by calling upon the neighbours and creating a threat of emulating herself. Due to the misbehavior of the respondent-wife the neighbours has to lodge a complaint before the police station. 8. She even at times got aggravated the family issues by calling upon the neighbours and creating a threat of emulating herself. Due to the misbehavior of the respondent-wife the neighbours has to lodge a complaint before the police station. The police intervened by visiting the spot i.e. residence of the husband and tried to console the respondent-wife but all this yielded no result and the adamant and acrimonious attitude persisted. She despite of residing in a family engaged herself in separate cooking, she used to lock the kitchen and her room and even so much so she never permitted the husband to enter her room, or permitting him from any intimate relationship. 9. According to the husband, all care and attention of the children were taken up by him and no contribution of any nature whatsoever was rendered by the wife despite being mother. On an earlier occasion also, the appellant had to institute a Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage, however, a compromise was entered into between them, which finds place as paper No. 15 Ga/8 but even after the said settlement, she resided together as wife for a month only in the same building but in a separate accommodation and during this period of one month, there had been no physical relationship and thus in the absence of there being any physical relationship with the wife despite of the wife residing in the same accommodation, it would yet again amount to be desertion and cruelty and hence according to the husband he was entitle for a decree of divorce. 10. On putting an appearance the wife partially accepted the plaint allegation so far it related to solemnization of marriage and birth of the children but denied other allegation as leveled to the effect that the respondent had misbehaved either with the parents or the husband himself. She contended that she was often duressed upon by the parents of the appellant by exerting pressure that soon they will be getting the appellant married with some other lady. 11. She contended that she was often duressed upon by the parents of the appellant by exerting pressure that soon they will be getting the appellant married with some other lady. 11. Based upon the aforesaid fact, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues, primarily pertaining to cruelty and desertion :- 1- D;k izfrokfnuh }kjk oknh ds lkFk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;k gS] ;fn gk¡ rks izHkko\ 2- D;k izfrokfnuh }kjk oknh dk fcuk ;qfDr ;qDr o i;kZIr dkj.k ds vfHkR;tu fd;k x;k gS\ 3- oknh fdl vuqrks’k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 12. The husband, in support of his contention produced himself as PW-1 and appeared in the witness box. Apart from filing an affidavit in examination in chief as paper No. 18 Ga and produced and his father Mr. Mehtab Singh Rawat as PW-2. In support of his case, the husband produced the documentary evidence that is plaint of Case No. 31 of 2009 and the compromise paper No. 15 Ga 2. 13. Similarly, the respondent-wife appeared in the witness box, recorded her statement as DW-1 and filed her examination in chief as paper No. 34 and she also produced Sunita Negi as DW-2. 14. The learned trial Court, while dealing with the issue of cruelty on considering the rival contentions, has recorded a finding based on the compromise dated 27.06.2009 wherein in the said compromise, it was recorded that both the parties have agreed to live together as husband and wife and to discharge their matrimonial obligations. 15. It was not only that according to the findings recorded by the learned family Court in compliance of the compromise dated 27.06.2009, they had even resided together for a month though the husband has tried to develop a case that during this period there had been no cohabitation between them and as such in the absence of there being consummation of marriage he is entitled to be granted with a decree of divorce. 16. Learned family Court recorded a finding that the factum of compromise in earlier set of proceedings has been accepted by the husband and when the subsequent suit was instituted, there is no such case was developed by the plaintiff that there had been any cruelty committed by the plaintiff against the husband requiring for dissolution of marriage after the settlement of compromise in earlier suit. According to the wife’s statement in the subsequent proceedings i.e. in the instant suit she also submitted that she still resided with the husband in the same house in and discharging all her matrimonial obligations. 17. Learned trial Court rightly so placed reliance on the compromise dated 27.06.2009 paper No. 15 Ga in which it was specifically stated by both the appellant and the respondent and they have consciously read the compromise which has been explained and understood by them and after reading the same; they have signed it which constituted to be based of disposal of the Case No. 31 of 2009. As soon as suit is decided on the basis of compromise, the compromise in itself constitutes as to be a decree which governs the relationship of husband and wife and thus once it is a settlement that no severement of matrimony could be done until and unless it is established beyond reasonable doubt that any cruelty was exercised by the other spouse, after the settlement on an identical previous grounds, which the basis of proceedings no decree of divorce could be claimed for. 18. What is surprising is that as per the consonants of the compromise, the husband has admitted the fact that prior to the entering of the compromise on 27.06.2009 both the parties agreed to condone the cruelty committed by them against one another, and by the said condonation they had even prayed for forgiveness for one another and thus this was one of the ground for adjudication of the earlier suit based on compromise. 19. Looking to the aforesaid statement, which would be treated as to be a statement made consciously before a Court of law which has formed to be the basis of adjudication of a dispute, it would be deemed that there happens to be no such cruelty as existing on the date of filing of the subsequent suit as no serious ground of cruelty is pleaded or shown to have occurred after the compromise of earlier suit. Even on the perusal of the statement of PW1, where he makes a statement almost by reading of the entire plaint and the plaint in itself which was filed later do not show that any such act or action was done or any cruelty was committed by the husband after the compromise no decree of divorce could be claimed for; that too based on any act of cruelty which already stood condoned amongst one another. 20. When there was no change in the circumstances after the culmination of earlier proceedings nor there constituted any plausible reason as to be the basis for seeking of dissolution of marriage, coupled with the fact that when the statement of wife as DW1, the wife has recorded a statement that out of six rooms available in the accommodation of father in law, she is residing in one of the rooms along with children in the same set. It would amount that the relationship between the husband and wife was not so severely damaged where the marriage could be said to have become irretrievable and hence in such a situation the factum of cruelty which is required to be proved beyond doubt, was not existing. In particular as per the norms of cruelty laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in 2007 (4) SCC 511 , which has given the probable classifications of cruelty. Para 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the said judgment are quoted 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 behavior is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behavior 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 behavior 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 behavior 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 behavior 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 behavior 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.” 21. Thus, Learned Family Court held that since as both husband and wife are qualified person working as well as they owe a certain social status for themselves as well as for their children, and looking to the factual back drop, the small issues which have been scripted between them it is not so serious enough which will fall to be within the definition of cruelty. Thus issue no.1 was rightly decided against the husband holding thereof that there exists no cruelty. Even otherwise also under law the term “cruelty” is a variable factor in each and every matrimonial relationship and either of the spouse who claims a decree of divorce based on a cruelty has have to establish the same on the basis of evidence on record. There is nothing on record brought by the husband to show that there existed any cruelty with a changed circumstances after the compromise but rather to the contrary it has shown that looking to the past proceedings there was no change circumstances and rather the factum of cruelty was not established, beyond doubt. Hence no decree for dissolution of marriage could be granted on the basis of cruelty. 22. Now, coming to the second issue it is pertaining to the desertion, as alleged by the husband, wife while recording a statement in the witness box in a Court of law to establish the allegation of desertion as raised by the husband that there was no physical relationship would submit that ever since the compromise they had been living together and there had been continuous physical relationship and denied the assertion pertaining to the desertion of the husband. The Court rightly held that for the purposes determining the desertion merely because a husband and wife residing separately may it be under the same accommodation do not lead to interference that there has been complete break down of the matrimonial relationship and it would amount to be a desertion. The Court rightly held that for the purposes determining the desertion merely because a husband and wife residing separately may it be under the same accommodation do not lead to interference that there has been complete break down of the matrimonial relationship and it would amount to be a desertion. Since as per the evidence on record the husband has failed to prove that the wife has completely ceased all the physical relationship and had completely deserted, this Court feels that in the absence of there being an establishment of cruelty and desertion which was required to be proved by the husband, who has claimed for decree of divorce of these grounds, learned family Court has rightly dismissed the Suit. 23. Hence this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the judgment rendered by the learned Court below. Thus, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.