JUDGMENT G.R. Moolchandani, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Family Judge No.3, Kota dated 27.04.2017, whereby learned court below has declined to grant decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 2. Appellant/petitioner Mahaveer Sen son of Kanhaiya Lal filed a divorce petition against his respondent wife Smt. Ritu Kumari, pleading that the couple solemnized their marriage on 16.01.2012 at Kota, respondent Smt. Ritu Kumari lived peacefully for eight to nine months, later her behavior became cruel against the petitioner and she started misbehaving and abusing her husband as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law, Rupesh was born out of the wedlock, respondent abandoned matrimonial house in December 2012, when she was teemful and refused to come back to join consortium, after vigorous efforts, she yielded to come back in the month of February 2014 but her behavior remained cruel, she would not perform domestic chores and used to sleep for whole the day or idle away by taking kid in the lap. She threatened to commit suicide, so family members kept mum and endured unpleasant, on 18.4.2014 petitioner tried to make her understand to live peaceful life and to perform domestic chores, on 18.05.2014 respondent left house of the petitioner, in his back and went away to her parental home, petitioner tried his best to bring her back but she did not yield, on 3.9.2014 a legal notice was served. Attitude of the respondent became intolerable so, petitioner has filed divorce petition. 3. Respondent, while accepting factum of marriage and begetting of kid, has pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry was also made and she was ousted, when she was pregnant after giving beatings by petitioner Mahaveer Sen, rebutting pleadings of alleged maltreatment, she has also pleaded that she observed her bridal duties and gave respect to members of her husband's family, who being greedy for dowry, perperated torture and cruelty, in additional pleas, it has also been pleaded that after marriage, her in-laws were sarcastic and used to pass taunts for bringing less dowry, she has further pleaded that her in-laws tried black magic and sorcery upon her and compelled her to eat unacceptable objects in odd hours and has pleaded not to accede with the prayer to grant divorce. 4. 4. Learned court below framed following three issues :- ¼1½ vk;k ;kfpdk esa o.kZukuqlkj v;kph dk ;kph ds lkFk dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj jgk gS\ ÁkFkhZ ¼2½ vk;k ;kph dk ,slk dksbZ vkpj.k ugha gS ftlds vk/kkj ij fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23 ds Áko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fookg&foPNsn dh vkKkfIr ls bUdkj fd;k tk ldrk gS\ ¼3½ vuqrks"k\ 5. Petitioner/appellant apart from him produced one witness, namely AW2 Kanhaiya Lal, respondent has produced Purushotam Sen, her father, as NAW2 besides herself as Ritu Sen NAW1. 6. Appreciating testimony of both the sides, learned court below has dismissed petition, declining to dissolve marriage. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that learned trial court has faulted in arriving at the finding of declining of divorce, though appellant adduced positive evidence that respondent deserted him and behaved in a cruel manner but instead of joining matrimonial consortium, has abandoned companionship without any reason, as such appellant is entitled to get decree for divorce, so findings of court below be reversed and decree for dissolution of marriage may be passed in favour of the appellant. 8. Conversely learned counsel for respondent has contended that respondent is not willfully residing separately but she was beaten and ousted by appellant and persistent dowry demands were made, her father even tried to satiate dowry greed but without yielding to deter unlawful lust, appellant gave beatings and perperated cruelty against respondent and she was wittingly ousted after giving beatings when she was pregnant, she is reluctant to seek divorce and is always prepared to join matrimonial consortium, act of appellant is itself enough to divulge that appellant never intended to join consortium because a notice for restitution of conjugal rights was sent and instead of resorting conjugal relations, petition under appeal seeking divorce was filed, respondent constrained to lodge FIR under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and trial is sub-judice against the appellant, so findings arrived at by learned trial court are correct and does not suffer from any infirmity, hence appeal be dismissed. 9. 9. Having heard both the sides, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the record and have examined the evidence thoroughly, which discloses that appellant Mahaveer Sen has himself conceded that respondent Ritu lived peacefully for a period of five to six months after marriage and tried to commit suicide while she was pregnant, allegations of attempting suicide has also been reiterated by AW2 Kanahiyalal, father of appellant but while replying a specific query, as to how she attempted suicide and what was conveyed and opined by doctor on this count, it has been replied that Smt. Ritu had consumed "kaali mirch" (pepper), when she was pregnant though begotten live baby, which rather falsifies said allegation, since consuming of "pepper" could not be a method to commit suicide or to induce miscarriage, admittedly the delivery was live and no harm was even caused to the foetus. 10. Main grievance of appellant has been that respondent was accustomed to leave her in-laws' house for visiting her parental home but respondent has discarded this version by saying that whenever she visited her parental house, appellant Mahaveer Sen willfully did not join her, in cross examination Mahaveer Sen has accepted that he had broken phone of respondent as well as of his own and has accepted returning of dowry articles, respondent has stated that while she was admitted for delivery, her husband was asked to come but he did not go, this aspect, on weighing evidence of Mahaveer Sen is apparent to convey that Mahaveer Sen was admittedly informed from Kelwada Hospital that Hospital was in need of his signatures/consent for the delivery but he did not attend Hospital even in such emergency. He has also stated that once on making her understand, his wife had returned, which also goes to show that respondent Ritu was not restive and even yielded to join consortium of her husband, he has also stated that once he had been to her parental home, when his wife asked him to be there, which also suggests that respondent Ritu was having ardent wish to meet her husband, Mahaveer Sen has admitted that when he visited on call of her wife to fetch her, then her parents were not present, thus failing to come instantaneously could not be termed to be a denial to leave her parental house, rather it was incumbent upon the appellant to wait for some time to fetch her wife after return of her parents but instead of staying and waiting for return of her mother and father, he returned back, save fetching respondent spouse. Mahaveer Sen also stated that he did not pay any amount to Ritu for bearing fare and has even stated that "he is not prepared to fetch his wife even if she is prepared to come" and has accepted that a case pertaining to demand of dowry was sub-judice against him. 11. AW2 Kanhaiya Lal, father of appellant Mahaveer Sen, has stated that Ritu, while left her in-laws home was pregnant and her delivery had taken place at her parental home, he has also stated that "respondent Ritu has got no lacking except mental tension, her character is impeccable", beyond pleadings, he has also stated that he had lent Rs. one lakh to father of Ritu and on demand to return, drama was orchestrated, he has stated that he got Ritu educated and got her B.Ed. one lakh to father of Ritu and on demand to return, drama was orchestrated, he has stated that he got Ritu educated and got her B.Ed. done, which goes to suggest that respondent amicably resided with her matrimonial home and even studied there for years together, so allegations of Ritu being restive and quarrelsome rather becomes belied, he too has accepted that a case for demand of dowry was pending against his son, he has further asserted that father of Ritu had called him telephonically at the time of her delivery, he has also said that his daughter-in-law Ritu had informed his wife regarding her delivery and has instead complained that it would have been informed to him and not to Mahaveer Sen, which rather reflects unwanted interference in smooth marital relations of the couple, he has also stated that he did not pay expenses towards delivery expenses. 12. AW3 Ram Prasad has stated that Ritu Kumari and Mahaveer Sen are not nurturing good relations and has also stated that Ritu has got grievance that she is subjected to torture by her in-laws, in cross examination he has accepted that no scuffle ever took place before him and has further stated that trifle domestic discontent exists between Ritu and Mahaveer, which is not of hefty in nature. 13. Respondent Smt. Ritu Sen has examined herself as NAW1, while corroborating her pleadings, she has stated that when she joined her in-laws home, their behavior got changed and they started demanding motorcycle and one lakh rupees as a condition precedent to retain her, she shunned to convey this to her parents for two to three months, once when her father made a telephone, then he was told by her father-in-law to take her back and settle the issue after that she was given beatings, so constrained to leave her matrimonial home, when she was pregnant by five months. She has further stated that she was beaten and was tried to be finished, she has also stated that at the time of her delivery, when her Tauji (uncle) made a phone call to her father-in-law that their presence could be needed in the Hospital, then her in-laws refused to come, she has also stated that whenever she asked her husband to take her, she was refused, she has further stated that when her baby was of eleven months, her in-laws came to fetch her and assured that she will not be given beatings nor any demand further would be made, then she yielded to come to her in-laws family but while celebrating birthday of her son, her in-laws did not invite her family members and on insistence, her father and both sisters were invited telephonically, she has candidly stated that some time later, when a wordy-exchange took place with her husband, her husband assaulted and raised his ' hand' to give her thrashing and his hand accidentally dashed with dressing-glass, causing injury upon his hand, then under pretext to meet her with her parents, she was abandoned there, but she came back with her brother to her in-laws home, she has also stated that once her husband and father-in-law came to her parental home, when her mother and father were away to attend a marriage, then they asked her to accompany, instantaneously and after altercation left without fetching her, Ritu has also stated that her husband and her father-in-law did not come to fetch her though she made several phones to take her back but her husband always threatened to divorce her, four years time has passed by her husband and in-laws did not venture to meet her son nor have taken care of her well-being, neither have paid any maintenance, she has also stated that her case under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC is pending against her in-laws and Exhibit-A1 is its FIR and Exhibit-A2 is its charge-sheet. She has further narrated that " she is ready to join and stay with her husband". On a suggestion she has stated that "it is wrong that her husband would have broken the dressing-glass indignantly but it was broken while he raised it to beat her", this suggestion is enough to show that Mahaveer Sen has broken dressing-glass out of rage, while attempting thrash her respondent wife. 14. On a suggestion she has stated that "it is wrong that her husband would have broken the dressing-glass indignantly but it was broken while he raised it to beat her", this suggestion is enough to show that Mahaveer Sen has broken dressing-glass out of rage, while attempting thrash her respondent wife. 14. NAW2 Purushotam Sen, father of respondent Ritu, has stated that after marriage, attitude of Ritu's in-laws altered and worsened, since they started beating and demanding dowry, once a phone call came that come, take Ritu and settle the issue, he has also stated that once he had been to attend a programme and went to in-laws family of Ritu but matter could not be resolved, rather younger brother of Mahaveer assaulted his daughter with a dagger then Ritu, while she was pregnant by five months, was taken to Bhanwargarh. She used to make phone calls to Mahaveer but he was reluctant to fetch her, she delivered a baby at Kelwada Hospital, a phone call was made to father of Mahaveer at the time of her admission in the Hospital but none bothered to come, in end of the examination-in-chief, he has stated that his daughter alongwith her child stays with him and he is inclined that her daughter's matrimonial relation should groom, if couple is ready to resolve, then he is very much prepared to send her daughter to her matrimonial home, in cross examination he has also stated that Mahaveer had sent a notice for restitution of conjugal rights. 15. In Moonshee Bazloor Rubeem v. Shamsoonnissa Begum 11 Moore's Indian Appeals 551 , where the Privy Council while dealing with "Cruelty" has observed : "The Mohomedan law, on a question of what is legal cruelty between Man and Wife, would probably not differ materially from our own of which one of the most recent ex-position is the following : 'There must be actual violence of such a character as to endanger personal health or safety; or there must be a reasonable apprehension of it'. D.Tolstoy's "The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes" cites "Cruelty" as under :- "Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger." 16. Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the other party has, after solemnization of the marriage, treated the Petitioner with cruelty. In a series of judgments Apex Court has repeatedly stated the meaning and outlined the scope of the term 'cruelty'. Cruelty is evident where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to cause in her or his mind reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse. Cruelty may be physical or mental. 17. In A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur Supreme Court has held that expression 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, but it can be physical or mental and has observed that "every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent". 18. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent". 18. It is manifest from the evidence that respondent Smt. Ritu used to call her husband telephonically and often asked appellant to take her, even she yielded to join matrimonial consortium on some occasions rather it discloses that respondent Smt. Ritu Kumari was subjected to cruelty and she was assaulted and abused by appellant, her personal belongings were ransacked, she was subjected to demand of dowry and torture and admittedly there exists a criminal case under Sections 498A, 406 of IPC against appellant husband, as such appellant has failed to establish cruelty against his respondent wife, contrary to it, respondent wife Smt. Ritu has produced evidence disclosing perpetration of cruelty against her, it also emerges from the evidence that character of respondent has remained impeccable and she lacks nothing except mental tension as per say of applicant's evidence, she even did not attempt to commit suicide since appellant has failed to establish it, sheer consumption of "kaali mirch" (pepper) could not said to be a reason to raise allegations for attempt of suicide, respondent Ritu Kumari has categorically stated that she still wishes to join matrimonial consortium of her husband, thus appellant has failed to establish his case, hence findings returned are not perverse. 19. Scrutiny and appraisal of afore-discussed evidence reveals that learned trial court has rightly returned findings pertaining to issues involved and has rightly declined to grant decree for dissolution of marriage since appellant/petitioner has failed to adduce positive evidence to prove pleadings. Therefore, we are of considered view that there appears no reason to interfere with the findings of learned trial court and we concur with the view taken by learned trial court. 20. For the reasons and discussions hereinabove, appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.