JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred as “the Family Court”) in Matrimonial Case No.53/2013 (121/2012), whereby the petition filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce, was dismissed. 2. The skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 08.10.2012, the appellant/husband has filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the Court of learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which was later on transferred to the learned Family Court, Sawai Madhopur. The appellant submitted the petition with averment that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 09.03.2003 in Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur. Thereafter, the respondent/wife started living with the appellant/husband in Bajaria, Sawai Madhopur. Out of the wedlock, the respondent gave birth to two female children namely Ms. Shanu aged 8 years and Ms. Peeu aged 6 years in Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur, who are presently living with the respondent/wife in Gangapur City. The respondent/wife denied to give custody of both the daughters to the appellant/husband. 3. The appellant/husband has also pleaded that the respondent is B.A, S.T.C. and before the marriage, she was employed as a para teacher in villager Naipur. After the marriage, the respondent/wife was appointed as a permanent government teacher and is presently posted in Raipur. The appellant/husband is only 12th pass. It is also pleaded that the appellant and his parents gave certain jewellery to the respondent/wife at the time of marriage, which is with her and detail whereof is mentioned in para 5 of the petition. The appellant/husband also pleaded that after getting appointment as a permanent government teacher in July-2007, the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home alongwith the jewellery, all the clothes and daughters, saying that she is going to join the service. Thereafter, the respondent/wife never returned to the appellant in her matrimonial home i.e. Bajaria, Sawai Madhopur. It is also pleaded that the respondent/wife is continuously serving as a government teacher since July, 2007 and is living with her parents in Gangapur city. Thereafter, the respondent/wife never returned to the appellant in her matrimonial home i.e. Bajaria, Sawai Madhopur. It is also pleaded that the respondent/wife is continuously serving as a government teacher since July, 2007 and is living with her parents in Gangapur city. During this period, the appellant contacted the respondent several times through telephone and requested her to come back to the matrimonial home at Bajaria, Sawai Madhopur, but the respondent/wife used filthy language and became aggressive saying that she cannot spend the life with the appellant as he is only 12th pass. The appellant wanted to talk to the daughters also on telephone but the respondent/wife did not allow him. The appellant/husband has further pleaded that the respondent is under influence of her parents, who usually deny her to live with the appellant. It is also pleaded that since beginning, behaviour of the respondent/wife with parents of the appellant is not good. Father of the appellant died in January-2004, even then the respondent/wife used to scold the appellant and his widow mother on petty matters and insulted them using filthy language. The respondent/wife insulted the appellant and his widow mother several times in presence of his friends using filthy language. Once the respondent/wife threw a cup of tea upon the appellant/husband in presence of his friends. The respondent used to give threat to commit suicide by hanging or poisoning. It is also pleaded that the respondent/wife has deserted the appellant/husband for last five years and prayed to grant decree of divorce in favour of the appellant dissolving the marriage solemnized on 09.03.2003. 4. The respondent/wife filed her written statement admitting the fact of marriage and giving birth to two daughters out of the wedlock and denied all the allegations levelled by the appellant/husband with regard to cruelty and desertion as pleaded in the divorce petition. It is stated by the respondent/wife that the appellant/husband himself has deserted the respondent/wife and he never taken care of the respondent and the daughters. It is also stated that the appellant used to give beatings to the respondent/wife saying that she is fatty and not beautiful, as such he does not like her and he will bring another wife. The respondent/wife also pleaded that the appellant/husband himself left the respondent to her parents house saying that he will take her back as soon as he finds a job. The respondent/wife also pleaded that the appellant/husband himself left the respondent to her parents house saying that he will take her back as soon as he finds a job. It is also stated that the appellant dislikes the respondent because she did not give birth to a male child. The appellant/husband used to torture the respondent on instigation of his mother. The respondent/wife is always ready to live with the appellant. She considers the appellant/husband to be god but the appellant never took care of her and she prayed to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the appellant/husband. 5. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent has teated the appellant with cruelty as mentioned in the petition so as to entitle him for a decree of divorce? 2. Whether the appellant and respondent are living separately since year 2007 so as to entitle the appellant/husband for decree of divorce? 3. Relief? 6. In support of the divorce petition, the appellant/husband filed affidavits of AW-1 Madan Mohan Sharma, appellant himself and AW-2 Sitaram Sharma. Copies of the affidavits were provided to the respondent/wife, who cross-examined the witnesses on their affidavits. In defence, the respondent/wife filed affidavit of NAW-1 Manju herself. Copy of the affidavit was provided to the appellant/husband, who cross-examined the respondent/wife on her affidavit. 7. The learned Family Court after evaluating and appreciating the evidence available on record and after hearing both the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the appellant/husband has failed to prove that he was treated by the respondent/wife with cruelty and has also failed to prove that the respondent/wife has deserted the appellant/husband without any reasonable excuse and, decided issue No.1 and 2 against the appellant/husband and dismissed the divorce petition filed by him. 8. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016, the appellant/husband has filed the present appeal. 9. Mr. H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that the respondent/wife is living separately from July, 2007 and since then the parties are not living like husband and wife. Learned counsel also submitted that behaviour of the respondent/wife towards the appellant/husband is not like that of a wife and she behaved cruelly with the appellant and his widow mother. 10. H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/husband submitted that the respondent/wife is living separately from July, 2007 and since then the parties are not living like husband and wife. Learned counsel also submitted that behaviour of the respondent/wife towards the appellant/husband is not like that of a wife and she behaved cruelly with the appellant and his widow mother. 10. Learned counsel also submitted that parties are living separately for last 7 years and more therefore, there is no possibility for them to live together in future because of the disputes and difference in their educational qualification. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent/wife is not ready to live with the appellant/husband as he is less educated person, therefore, decree of divorce should have been granted in favour of the appellant but the learned Family Court has ignored all the prevailing circumstances and dismissed the divorce petition in a casual manner, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered by this Hon’ble Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant/husband has established his case that behaviour of the respondent/wife towards him and his mother was not normal, rather she treated them with cruelty and the respondent is living separately willfully without reasonable excuse, thus decree of divorce should have been granted. But the learned Family Court disbelieved the submissions of the appellant/husband without any material on record to come to adverse conclusion and thereby committed grave error. The learned Family Court overlooked all the material placed before it by the appellant and passed the impugned judgment, which deserves to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is crystal clear that the appellant has strong prima-facie case in his favour for a decree of divorce and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court and to grant a decree of divorce allowing the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the appellant/husband. 13. We gave our anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel, gone through the record made available to us and relevant legal provisions. 14. In substance, the appellant/husband in his petition for divorce has pleaded certain incidents, which according to him, constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the respondent/wife. 15. 14. In substance, the appellant/husband in his petition for divorce has pleaded certain incidents, which according to him, constituted cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the respondent/wife. 15. The first ground of cruelty alleged by the appellant/husband is that the respondent/wife was appointed as permanent government teacher in July, 2007 and since then she is living with her parents in Gangapur City. During this period, the appellant called the respondent/wife several times through the telephone requesting her to come back to matrimonial home but she used filthy language and became aggressive. The respondent/wife taunted that she cannot spend life with the appellant, as he is 12th pass only. The respondent/wife did not give access to the appellant to talk to their daughters on telephone. Respondent/wife denied all the allegations. The allegations are general in nature with no details. In this respect, the appellant/husband did not produce any documentary evidence with regard to details of the telephone calls allegedly made by him to the respondent/wife. In respect of his contentions, the appellant examined AW-2 Sitaram, who is his real brother and as such he is an interested witness. The appellant did not examine any independent witness to substantiate the allegations. The appellant has stated in his cross-examination that he did not produce details of the phone calls made by him to the respondent/wife. The appellant has also stated that he does not remember the phone number of the respondent. The appellant further stated that he never reported the matter of respondent’s misbehave to the police. The appellant admitted that the respondent/wife is much qualified than him, therefore, he keeps inferiority complex. 16. AW-2 Sitaram admitted in his cross-examination that no conversation took place between the appellant and the respondent/wife since year 2007. The witness also stated that the incidents of abusing and misbehave by the respondent, occurred prior to year 2007. 17. The respondent/wife denied all the allegations in her affidavit and deposed in her cross-examination that she is ready and willing to give custody of the daughters to the appellant/husband, if he so desires. The respondent/wife in her cross-examination has denied the suggestion that she ever quarreled with her mother-in-law and husband. 18. 17. The respondent/wife denied all the allegations in her affidavit and deposed in her cross-examination that she is ready and willing to give custody of the daughters to the appellant/husband, if he so desires. The respondent/wife in her cross-examination has denied the suggestion that she ever quarreled with her mother-in-law and husband. 18. According to the pleadings and deposition of the appellant, he made several phone calls to the respondent/wife after July, 2007 till the date of filing of the divorce petition (i.e. 08.10.2012), then the respondent/wife became aggressive and abused him using filthy language, whereas AW-2 Sitaram deposed that the incidents of abusing and misbehave by the respondent occurred prior to year 2007. From deposition of AW-2 Sitaram, it reveals that he has no personal knowledge about the dispute between the parties and he is a hearsay witness only. 19. The second ground of cruelty is about the respondent’s behaviour with the appellant and his parents. The appellant alleged that since beginning, behaviour of the respondent/wife with the appellant and his parents is not good. After the death of appellant’s father, the respondent/wife used to abuse and scold him and his mother and thereby she insulted them. The appellant has also alleged that the respondent used to insult the appellant and his mother using filthy language in presence of his friends and relatives and such type of her behaviour was recurring and continuous. The respondent/wife denied the allegations. The allegations are general in nature with no details. In this respect, the appellant/husband did not examine his friends and relatives in whose presence, the respondent/wife ever abused and insulted the appellant and his mother. The appellant did not disclose the names of his friends and relatives in whose presence, the respondent has allegedly misbehaved, abused and insulted the appellant and his mother. Even, the appellant did not examine his mother to substantiate the allegations. The appellant/husband neither made any efforts to examine his friends, relatives and mother to substantiate the allegations nor offered any explanation for not producing/summoning them in the Court for cross-examination by the respondent/wife. 20. The third ground of cruelty alleged by the appellant is that the respondent/wife used to abuse the appellant and insulted him several times in presence of his friends. He also alleged that once the respondent/wife threw a cup of tea upon the appellant in presence of his friends. 20. The third ground of cruelty alleged by the appellant is that the respondent/wife used to abuse the appellant and insulted him several times in presence of his friends. He also alleged that once the respondent/wife threw a cup of tea upon the appellant in presence of his friends. The respondent/wife denied the allegations. The allegations are general in nature with no details. 21. In this respect, AW-2 Sitaram, real brother of the appellant has corroborated the statement of the appellant but the appellant did not examine any of his friends who witnessed the alleged incident. Even the appellant did not examine any of his neighbour to substantiate the allegation of the respondent’s misbehaviour. 22. The forth ground of cruelty alleged by the appellant is that the respondent used to give threats of committing suicide by hanging or poisoning. The respondent/wife denied the allegation. The allegation is general in nature with no details. The appellant did not produce any specific evidence in support of the allegation. 23. A bare perusal of pleadings of the parties, reveal that almost all the grounds of cruelty taken by the appellant/husband in his petition for dissolution of marriage are stale. The allegations are general in nature with no details i.e., when and where the incidents took place, who witnessed the incidents and what was the background of such incidents. The allegations of cruelty levelled by the appellant/husband are vague. Mere plea of the appellant/husband that behaviour of the respondent/wife towards him and his parents was cruel and rude, does not establish the cruelty as defined by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 . 24. As discussed above, the alleged misbehaviour of the respondent/wife is not found to be proved by reliable evidence to persuade the Court to grant decree of dissolution of marriage. 25. The next ground of dissolution of marriage taken by the appellant/husband is that the respondent/wife has deserted him and they are living separately since year 2007 so as to entitle him for decree of divorce. The respondent wife has denied the allegation of desertion levelled by the appellant. Indisputably, the respondent/wife was appointed as permanent government teacher in Gangapur City in the month of July, 2007 and, since then, the parties to the lis are living separately. The respondent wife has denied the allegation of desertion levelled by the appellant. Indisputably, the respondent/wife was appointed as permanent government teacher in Gangapur City in the month of July, 2007 and, since then, the parties to the lis are living separately. Case of the appellant/husband is that he made several phone calls to the respondent/wife to come back to the matrimonial home but she did not return and is living with her parents, thereby she deserted the appellant since then. The respondent/wife denied averments of the appellant and stated that the appellant/husband himself has deserted her, because he dislikes her and wants to marry with another lady, whereas she is ready and willing to live with him. 26. In this respect, the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he never took care of his daughters since the year 2007. The appellant also deposed that the respondent/wife did not seek her posting as per his wish, rather she took posting as per wishes of her parents. The appellant in his cross-examination has admitted that government servant cannot leave his headquarter without permission of his officer. Admittedly, the respondent/wife is serving as a teacher with Rajasthan Government and is posted at Gangapur City and because of that she is living at place of her posting, which is sine qua non for a government job and is a reasonable excuse for the respondent to live away from her matrimonial home. 27. It reveals from the statement of the appellant that prior to July-2007, the respondent was posted as para teacher in Village Naipur and she was living there. It also reveals that the appellant used to visit the respondent/wife in village Naipur once in three days. It also reveals that village Naipur is 60 KMs away from his residence and the present place of posting i.e. Gangapur City is 70 KMs away, but since 2007 the appellant/husband never went to Gangapur City to take care of the respondent/wife and the daughters. This is not the case of the appellant that it is not possible for him to live with the respondent/wife due to nature of his work, rather he stated that he is unemployed. 28. This is not the case of the appellant that it is not possible for him to live with the respondent/wife due to nature of his work, rather he stated that he is unemployed. 28. To amount to a matrimonial offence, desertion must be without reasonable cause and, without consent and wish of the petitioner, but there is no material on record to prove the allegation that the respondent/wife would have willfully deserted the appellant/husband. In view of the above, it is proved that the respondent/wife has not withdrawn from the society of the appellant/husband and she is living at the place of her posting, which is basic requirement of her job and is a reasonable excuse for her to live away from her matrimonial home and the appellant/husband has failed to prove that the respondent/wife has withdrawn from the society of the appellant and has willingly deserted him. 29. In view of the discussions made above, the appellant/husband has utterly failed to prove both the grounds i.e. cruelty and desertion by the respondent/wife so as to entitle him to get decree of divorce against the respondent/wife. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that a decree for dissolution of the marriage ought to have been passed because this is a case of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, as the parties are living separately for more than seven years and there is no possibility of their reunion. We are in complete disagreement with the contention, because irretrievable breakdown of marriage, by itself, is not a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 31. The learned Family Court has evaluated and appreciated the evidence available on record in right perspective and came to a right conclusion that the appellant/husband has failed to prove that he was treated by the respondent with cruelty and has been deserted by her without any reasonable excuse and dismissed the petition accordingly. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, which call for our interference. We find no substance in the appeal. 32. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.