JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though respondent has appeared on notice through their counsel but no one appears today on behalf of him. 2. Appellant is the wife, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 13.01.2010 /28.01.2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau, Daltonganj in Matrimonial Case No. 33 of 2008. The matrimonial suit preferred by the petitioner- husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty in terms of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed ex-parte. It appears from the perusal of the records that the opposite party-wife/ appellant herein had appeared on notice in the suit and also participated in a conciliatory exercise whereunder a joint compromise petition was also filed but not acted upon. Since she stopped appearing in the matter, notices were again issued upon her but she did not choose to appear or file any written statement. Consequently, she was debarred from filing written statement and the case was heard ex-parte. 3. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.7.2007, as per the case of the petitioner-husband, at village Mahugawan under Bishrampur police station, District- Palamau, as per Hindu rites and customs. He alleged that soon after the marriage and her stay at the matrimonial home, she left for the house of her parents for few days. However, when she came back, her attitude became rude. She started behaving roughly against the petitioner and other family members for no reason. Despite efforts by the family members to ignore her rude behaviour, she did not change and started indulging in use of filthy and abusive language against him and his family members. She started demanding a sum of Rs. 200/- per day for her expenses and wanted to live at her father’s house along with the petitioner as Ghar Jamai as she was the only daughter. Her relatives started visiting petitioner's house frequently and used to instigate her to carry on her rude behaviour. They were threatened of false criminal cases including dowry case. Despite insistence also on the parents of the opposite party, her behaviour remain unchanged. She left for her parents house on 12.3.2008 along with all her ornaments, cash and usable articles, against the wishes of petitioner and his family members and efforts for amicable settlement by the petitioner, his parents and well-wishers went in vain. Despite insistence also on the parents of the opposite party, her behaviour remain unchanged. She left for her parents house on 12.3.2008 along with all her ornaments, cash and usable articles, against the wishes of petitioner and his family members and efforts for amicable settlement by the petitioner, his parents and well-wishers went in vain. Her father, in fact, told the petitioner that he will get his daughter remarried. Despite that he went to bring her back on 29.3.2008 but was un-welcome in his in-laws house. He was also manhandled and beaten up by the members of the family of the wife. He again made attempts on 4.6.2008 along with his relatives to bring her back but the same thing was repeated. He was compelled to file a case against her in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, Daltonganj and also seek dissolution of marriage through the instant matrimonial suit on grounds of cruelty. The petitioner alleged physical and mental torture at the hands of the opposite party- wife and his family members with no hope of resumption of marriage. On these pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following three issues for considerations: “(i) Whether this case is maintainable? (ii) Has the petitioner got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce in this case? Four witnesses were examined during trial on behalf of the petitioner- husband, namely, Ganesh Singh, PW-1; Ram Janam Upadhya, PW-2; Sarju Prasad, PW-3, who is the father of the petitioner and P.W. 4, the petitioner himself. All these witnesses deposed in support of the case pleaded by the petitioner. They also stated that she started creating trouble in the matrimonial house soon after her marriage. She also conveyed her intention to stay at her parents house as she was the only daughter. The witness No. 1 and 2 also deposed that due to the intervention of the court, she came to the matrimonial house but again left on 27.03.2009. The father of the petitioner PW-3 also deposed in similar manner. He further stated that after one or two months of the marriage, she started indulging in quarrel. She left for her parents house twice without informing the family members. She has conveyed her disinclination to live with the petitioner at her in-laws house. Petitioner in his deposition also supported his case. He further stated that after one or two months of the marriage, she started indulging in quarrel. She left for her parents house twice without informing the family members. She has conveyed her disinclination to live with the petitioner at her in-laws house. Petitioner in his deposition also supported his case. He also stated that there was no demand of dowry from his in-laws. However, soon after the marriage, the opposite party returned to her parents house. He brought her back during the Dussehra festival. Her behaviour changed thereafter. She was also pressurizing him to live at her parents’ house as Ghar Jamai since she was the only daughter. She also pressurized him to pay Rs. 200/- per day, otherwise, he would face dire consequences. He was also threatened that she would engage in 2nd marriage. He was threatened of being implicated in false cases under Dowry Act. Even after compromise, she stayed at the matrimonial home for short time and went back on 27.3.2009. Thereafter her brothers came to his house on 29.3.2009. They abused and assaulted him. He was willing to keep his wife but the opposite party did not want to live with him. There were no issues born out of the wedlock.” 4. Based on the aforesaid oral evidence of the petitioner's witnesses and the allegations of cruelty stated by him including the statement that she was pressurizing the petitioner to give Rs. 200/- per day for maintenance and that she had fled away from the house of the petitioner without informing him or his family members, the learned family court was persuaded to record a finding of cruelty against the opposite party-wife/appellant herein. He, therefore, opined that the petitioner had got valid cause of action to bring the case and that the opposite party had willingly left her in-laws house and was ignoring her husband. This has entailed physical and mental cruelty on the petitioner with entitlement for a decree of divorce. Divorce was, accordingly, granted with a direction upon the petitioner to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party-wife. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the case was decided ex-parte but the learned court did not have any material evidence to record a finding of cruelty against the wife. Divorce was, accordingly, granted with a direction upon the petitioner to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party-wife. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the case was decided ex-parte but the learned court did not have any material evidence to record a finding of cruelty against the wife. The oral evidence of all the plaintiff’s witnesses together would not substantiate a serious allegation of cruelty on her part. No particular incidence of physical or mental cruelty in the terms explained by the Apex Court in several judgments, rendered from time to time, have been established to decree the suit in favour of the husband. The allegation of her demand of Rs. 200/- per day for her maintenance and threats of false criminal cases being lodged against them or insistence to stay as Ghar Jamai at her parents’ house, all are unsubstantiated allegations with no corroborative evidence. A sacred tie of marriage has been casually dissolved by the learned family court in teeth of the well settled principles of law rendered by the Apex Court. He, however, submits that the appellant has also filed a criminal case under section 498A of the IPC which is still pending. She, however, is willing to stay with the husband. The present appeal may therefore be allowed. 6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the impugned judgment. We have also taken note of the relevant material evidence relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and discussed by the appellate court in the impugned judgment. The ingredients of cruelty in marriage either mental or physical are to be established by cogent evidence. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual in its application, according to social status of the persons involved and their economic conditions and other matters. The question whether the acts complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole acts and the matrimonial relationship between the parties. In this connection, the culture, the temperament and status in life and many other things are the factors which have to be considered. The question whether the acts complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole acts and the matrimonial relationship between the parties. In this connection, the culture, the temperament and status in life and many other things are the factors which have to be considered. Each case depends on its own facts and must be judged on these facts as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778 and also relied upon in the case of Malathi Ravi vs. B.V. Ravi, (2014) 7 SCC 640 . In the case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the Apex Court has given certain illustrative examples wherefrom inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. The court has however observed that they are illustrative and not exhaustive. The illustrations referred to at para 101 of the report are profitably quoted hereunder. “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. (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. (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. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation 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.” 7. From the illustrations cited above, it can be easily drawn that sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure of normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. The married life should be reviewed as a whole and 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 the spouse, the wrong party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the marriage life which happens would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. Judged on the standards and illustrations laid down by the Apex Court, we find that the present case falls short of the ingredients of physical or mental cruelty for the husband to get a decree of divorce. The marriage was not more than one year old. No such exceptional conduct of sustained abuse or humiliation, torture which would render the life of the other spouse miserable has been made out on the basis of the oral testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses uncorroborated by any other sources or documents. The wife has in fact stayed for some time in the matrimonial house and as per the case of the petitioner also stayed most of the time in her parents’ house. This is in itself goes to show that sustained instances of physical or mental cruelty had not occasioned for the husband to have felt threatened of peaceful relationship and happy conjugal life with the wife. The conduct of the wife even as per the evidence on record may amount to normal wear and tear of married life, which the spouses are required to adjust over a period of time. The conduct of the wife even as per the evidence on record may amount to normal wear and tear of married life, which the spouses are required to adjust over a period of time. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned court has committed error of law and on facts in proceeding to decree the suit in favour of the husband. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree stands set aside. Decree accordingly.