JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. At this stage, when this Appeal is being considered for final argument, the matrimony between the parties has already reached to its very ripe stage of 33 years. It is not only that, even out of the matrimony between the parties to the Appeal, admittedly there were three children namely Himanshu, who at the time of filing of the petition was of 19 years, now 30 years of age, Kumari Neha, who was 17 years of age at the time of filing of the petition, now 28 years of age and Priyanshu, who was 16 years of age at the time of filing of the petition, now 27 years of age. Meaning thereby at this stage almost all children have also attain the majority and they themselves are of marriageable age. 2. Even when this petition was filed before this Court by way of present Appeal, the appellant in his affidavit has depicted his age to be 56 years and logically according to his own showing, he is now almost above 56 years of age. Under the Hindu mythology, the marriages are a sacrament of life where there is an unbreakable bond between the two sexes to spend their life together in all shortcomings, ups and downs of their life and to support each other whenever crisis befalls them. The youth hood of the marriage, though it has got its own fancies but realistic requirement of the marriage and the comparison-shop of a partner only attains its importance when the age starts wither out with the physical capacity of the partners denuding. We feel that this is the stage and thereafter that the actual necessity of a partner is required so as to understand to care and to shower affection, that too, when the children after attaining their majority venture out for pursuing their own careers or settling in their independent life. 3. At this stage sustaining the decree of dissolution of marriage or claiming a decree for dissolution would not serve a purpose for the parties. This is what the situation has reached to in the instant case. The appellant had instituted the proceedings for dissolution of marriage by filing of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2006, praying for that the marriage between them as solemnized on 02.10.1984 may be dissolved. This is what the situation has reached to in the instant case. The appellant had instituted the proceedings for dissolution of marriage by filing of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2006, praying for that the marriage between them as solemnized on 02.10.1984 may be dissolved. The reason as assigned in plaint by the husband for seeking the decree for dissolution of marriage was that there happens to be certain ideological differences in the thought process of the parties to the appeal, which often constitutes to be the reason for feud between them and this has also resulted into a very unhealthy environment in the family, where the husband and the wife were often found in loggerheads with one another. Another reason which has been taken by the husband for getting a decree for divorce was that he is a government servant and he has to simultaneously discharge his official responsibilities, but on account of the paucity of time he admits that he was unable to take a complete care of the family which he as a head of the family is supposed to discharge. 4. He submits that apart from the said shortcoming and consciousness towards the family, his problem has further being surmounted when the respondent-wife often used to quarrel with him by using un-parliamentary language and alleging that she is a lady who has got no sympathy nor she has got any affection towards the husband or her children. He submitted that the movement of her in the society the way she carries herself in the society is of such a nature that it often tarnishes the image of the family as a whole. 5. He submitted that besides the above fact of cruelty, it had further agonized him when she has voluntarily deserted him on 15.04.2001 and started residing with her parents for no valid reason and thus since she has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the husband for no logical reason, he would be entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion too. He submitted that after 15.04.2001 and between the date of filing of the petition under Section 13 he has made number of efforts to bring back the wife to her matrimonial home, but she tacitly refused to join the husband and to perform her matrimonial obligations for one reason or another. 6. He submitted that after 15.04.2001 and between the date of filing of the petition under Section 13 he has made number of efforts to bring back the wife to her matrimonial home, but she tacitly refused to join the husband and to perform her matrimonial obligations for one reason or another. 6. He submitted that now since almost 5 years period has lapsed since she is residing separately there is a desertion beyond the statutory period of 2 years and hence he was entitled for a decree of divorce. He submitted that due to the non-cooperative attitude of the respondent-wife he was never assisted by her in discharging his domestic responsibilities of taking care of the children and imparting them education. Thus he submitted that the marriage between them has almost broken down and it was not practically possible to continue to reside with the respondent-wife. 7. In response to the aforesaid pleading, the respondent-wife filed her written statement by way of paper No. 37B, while partly admitting the fact of the marriage the fact of details of the children, she virtually denied all the allegations of cruelty which the husband has pleaded as a ground for invoking Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) alleging therein cruelty. She submitted that according to the pleading of the husband, he himself has admitted the fact that due to his official engagements, he seldom gets time to take care of the family. The wife in response to the pleading of the husband has filed written statement paper No. 37-B in which she submitted that the allegations of cruelty as levelled by the husband in his plaint, apart from being false are not sustainable. 8. She further submitted that the pleadings are rather being utilised by the husband to take it as a camouflage his owned illegal activities of having illicit relationship with number of females. She submitted that all allegations of cruelty are for the purposes of getting solemnized his second marriage he has even issued publications. She submitted that for the said purpose he often used to carry his bio-data with him. She submitted that all allegations of cruelty are for the purposes of getting solemnized his second marriage he has even issued publications. She submitted that for the said purpose he often used to carry his bio-data with him. The allegations pertaining to the fact that the wife has deserted and has left the residence on 15.04.2001 as pleaded by the husband in the plaint is unsustainable for the reason that she has never left the matrimonial home and rather she still continues to reside there and this fact could be well established from the evidence brought on record by her that is the voter list as issued on 19.12.2003 and the identity card which was to be utilised for three tier Panchayat Raj Election wherein she is shown to be the resident of the address of her matrimonial home. 9. She submitted that on account of the atrocities of the husband, she has to lodge complaint before the police helpline in which various dates the proceedings were held and the same was also participated by the husband. She submitted that the husband-appellant is a person who conspire things even in personal relationship and is not clear in his conviction before her or to any other family member as he is too contemplative. 10. Based on the pleadings the learned trial Court framed two major issues for consideration on 09.02.2008 pertaining to the cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) and for desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b). In support of his contention, the plaintiff placed on record various documents and the proceedings which were held inter se between them prior in time i.e. prior to the institution the proceedings before the learned family Court by way of Case No. 48 of 2008 and the objection filed therein as No. 11-C2 and the Order passed by the learned CJM dated 12.11.2007 and the Order passed in Criminal Case No. 82 of 2007 dated 15.04.2008. 11. He also produced on record the paper cuttings which were published. Apart from it he has placed various other documents showing his genuineness to the effect that rather it was the wife who was responsible for exercising cruelty against him. 12. In oral evidence he produced himself as PW-1 and submitted his affidavit in examination in chief as well as has produced PW-2. Apart from it he has placed various other documents showing his genuineness to the effect that rather it was the wife who was responsible for exercising cruelty against him. 12. In oral evidence he produced himself as PW-1 and submitted his affidavit in examination in chief as well as has produced PW-2. The defendant-wife too had produced the school leaving certificate, information received under the Right to Information Act, Election Rules of 2005 and the certificate issued in her favour by way of an address proof, complaint submitted to the Mahila Cell, etc. 13. She produced herself as DW-1 and one Neha Methani as DW-2. The learned Trial Court, while considering the issue No. 1 relating to the cruelty and on consideration of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that looking to the circumstances in which the matrimony has reached to this stage, after the first son was born in 1985 and second child who was born on 1989 and the third one in 1991. 14. In the pleading as raised in the plaint, the learned trial Court has observed that the allegations levelled by the husband against the wife to the effect that she used to misbehave and treat her with cruelty by defaming her in the entire colony and she used to pull the husband by collar. All these events are only pleaded in the affidavit dated 10.03.2008. All these incidents as would apparent from the affidavit and the one which have chanced after the filing of the proceedings for dissolution of marriage. 15. The affidavit of Neha Methani was adduced by the wife as DW-2 she in the proceedings before the Court has submitted that the appellant wants to solemnize the second marriage hence her father was trying to duress upon her i.e. wife so that she may leave the matrimonial home and it will open out a way for the husband to enter into a second marriage. She submitted that the basis of the entire controversy and the dispute is not the behaviour of the wife but rather the attitude of the father who always wanted to create a scene so that the wife may leave the matrimonial home. She deposed that the story as developed by the husband that she has left the matrimonial home is absolutely belied. She deposed that the story as developed by the husband that she has left the matrimonial home is absolutely belied. In her statement she submitted that the allegations levelled by the husband that the wife has stolen certain money from the matrimonial home apart being false was also not proved. On perusal of the cross examination and the statement recorded before the learned Court below, the fact of cruelty and the allegations raised in the plaint was not established. For the purposes of attracting provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) so as to dissolve the marriage. The plaintiff is mandatorily required to prove cruelty which he has pleaded as to be the basis of dissolution of marriage. 16. Merely on hearsay statement made in the pleading as well as in the affidavit cannot be taken as to be the gospel truth to make it as to be the basis for dissolving the marriage. Because severement of the relationship of a marriage has a wide repercussion on the family and hence it has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in 2007 (4) SCC 511 that for the purpose of attracting the basis of cruelty for dissolving the marriage the elements which are required to be established by the plaintiff has to be proved and in the absence of the same being established, the marriage ought not to be dissolved. 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.” 17. Looking to the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the husband has failed to establish that there was any cruelty exercised by the wife against the husband and thus the issue No. 1 was rightly decided against him. Issue No. 2 as adjudicated by the learned Court below pertains to the desertion. Being one of the element for dissolution of marriage covered by Section 13(1)(i-b). Yet again a desertion has to be a desertion actually acted open. Meaning thereby it has to be an animus desendie that means there has to be an element of permanency in desertion mere momentary desertion or desertion for a shorter period because of certain untoward situation or misunderstanding will not tantamount to be a desertion falling to be within the ambit of Section 13 of the Act, there has to be an intention to permanently live seperately. 18. In the instant case though the husband has pleaded that the wife has left the matrimonial home on 15.04.2001, but according to the evidence which has come on record both oral as well as documentary evidence, it goes to show that as a matter of fact the respondent-wife continued to reside in the matrimonial home as would be apparent from the three tier Panchayat Raj Election voter’s list, and the statement of the PW2 that the wife has never left the company of the husband. Even On perusal of the statement of the DW-2 Neha, it has further come on record that rather in 2009 it was the husband who has left the matrimonial home and has rather failed to discharge his responsibilities towards the matrimony. As evidence established that both husband and wife are living together in a government accommodation at Roshnabad and thus the fact of wife having deserted the husband on 15.04.2001 was also not proved. 19. Accordingly, the learned family Court vide its judgment dated 27.09.2012 has dismissed the suit of the husband for dissolution of marriage. As evidence established that both husband and wife are living together in a government accommodation at Roshnabad and thus the fact of wife having deserted the husband on 15.04.2001 was also not proved. 19. Accordingly, the learned family Court vide its judgment dated 27.09.2012 has dismissed the suit of the husband for dissolution of marriage. The fact of cruelty and desertion since having not been established, and on perusal of the records and on scrutiny of evidence cruelty and desertion not made out, no such mistake has been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the suit of appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, coupled with the fact looking to the age of the marriage and age of the children and the social requirement for the entire family, the marriage which has now 33 years of age does not deserve to be dissolved, thus the Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.