JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This civil misc. appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been preferred against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.299/2012, whereby the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the appellant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed an application under Section 13 of the Act seeking divorce against his spouse on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the marriage between both the parties was solemnized on 05.02.1993 and the respondent-wife continuously put pressure upon the appellant for separation from his parents. It was alleged by the wife that the husband was having illicit relationship. The counter allegation was also there, as the appellant had alleged illegitimate relationship of the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that a case was also lodged against him under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the learned court below failed to appreciate the material and evidence available on record, and thus, the finding arrived at by the learned court below is perverse in the eye of law. 5. The allegation of the respondent-wife regarding the appellant having illicit relationship with his brother's wife was a cruelty in itself and the same was followed by false allegation under Section 498A and 323 IPC. The said acts of the respondent, as per learned counsel for the appellant, clearly attribute cruelty upon her towards the matrimony. The misbehaviour of the respondent with the parents of the appellant was also harped upon and relationship of the respondent with a stranger was also made a strong ground by learned counsel for the appellant, while making his arguments. 6. The learned court below framed four issues. Firstly, whether the conduct of the respondent was cruelty towards the appellant and his family members. Issue No.2 was whether the respondent was into an illicit relationship with Gotu @ Anwar . Issue No.3 was whether the respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause. Issue No.4 was whether the suit was maintainable at the instance of the appellant. 7. Issue No.2 was whether the respondent was into an illicit relationship with Gotu @ Anwar . Issue No.3 was whether the respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause. Issue No.4 was whether the suit was maintainable at the instance of the appellant. 7. The learned court below while deciding issues No.1 to 4 has stated that the allegation of illicit relationship against the appellant is a cruelty with the wife i.e. the respondent and not on the husband, and therefore, the same cannot give the benefit of provision of cruelty to the appellant. 8. The desertion is harped upon by learned counsel for the petitioner by seeking attention of the court to the facts mentioned in the judgment passed by the learned court below, that the respondent was residing in the house of Badrilal Kabra and the same has been clarified by the statement of one Shri Sohanlal, whereby it has been established that there was conciliation between the parties, as a result of which, the respondent was shifted to the residence of Badrilal Kabra in a separate rented accommodation in his house. 9. The appellant may have made efforts for taking the respondent back to his house, but once the conciliation proceedings had taken place and accordingly as a matter of compromise, the respondent was shifted to a rented accommodation, clearly points out that this was an arrangement, which was arrived at between the husband and wife with the intervention of the other villagers and relatives. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a factual matrix reflecting cruelty by the respondent. The statement as recorded by the learned court below and its version reproduced in the judgment clearly establishes that the incident with the respondent in a room along with one Gotu Khan was not established, as the door was got opened, but any such fact of illicit relationship has not been established by the appellant. 10. On the contrary, the respondent has alleged that she had in fact caught the appellant in a compromising position with his brother's wife, and on protest, she was given beating on 15.06.2010. The learned court below thereafter has rightly taken a view that such an act in the given circumstances would not amount to cruelty. 10. On the contrary, the respondent has alleged that she had in fact caught the appellant in a compromising position with his brother's wife, and on protest, she was given beating on 15.06.2010. The learned court below thereafter has rightly taken a view that such an act in the given circumstances would not amount to cruelty. Leaving of the matrimonial home by the respondent also did not amount to cruelty, as it was a conjoint decision taken by the family members and the other villagers with the help of conciliation conducted by the family members, whereby the decision of the respondent living in a rented premises was arrived at. Thus, all the issues were decided in favour of the respondent. The learned court below therefore, after a detailed consideration, arrived at a logical conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish any cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent, and therefore, could not establish the grounds necessary for invoking Section 13 of the Act. 11. Moreover, "cruelty" has no definition in the legislation itself, and therefore, decision has to be arrived at after appreciation of the basic facts of each case, and broadly, "cruelty" would mean that the personal relationship has arrived at such a juncture that it would be not be possible for one of the spouse to live day-to-day with the other. Thus, the mental and physical element both are ingredients of such definition of "cruelty" and the same cannot be extracted only out of mere allegations against each other, as the law would require something more definite for bringing the present facts into the ambit of cruelty or desertion. 12. In (1975) 2 SCC 326 (N.G.Dastane (Dr.) v. S.Dastane) it was observed as follows:- "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......" 13. In (2007) 4 SCC 511 : Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh dealing with the term mental cruelty it was observed as follows:- "98. We will therefore have regard only to grave and weighty incidents and consider these to find what place they occupy on the marriage canvas......" 13. 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. 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." 14. The application under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the appellant alleging cruelty in the behaviour of the respondent, and therefore, the burden of proof was upon him. 15. The appellant in this case has miserably failed to establish the fact of cruelty and desertion at the instance of the respondent. The appellant himself was partly responsible for the cruelty and desertion, and therefore, the same cannot be totally attributed to the respondent and the appellant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the circumstances created by his own behaviour. Thus, the appellant, on having failed to establish the cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Act, there is no reason to arrive at any different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned court below looking into the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Consequently, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.