JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 10.05.2013 by Additional Family Court, Vadodara in Family (HMP) Suit No.53 of 2010. Under this judgment and order, the application for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband came to be dismissed and hence, the husband is in appeal before this Court. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the husband” the “the wife”) entered into a marriage on 11.05.1993 as per the rites and rituals of Hindu community at village Pore in Vadodara. Out of matrimonial wedlock, a male child was born in the year 1994. 2.1 It is the case of the husband that after birth of the child, the wife was not inclined to reside in the matrimonial home and hence, started residing with her parents and even after attempts to settle, except for the brief period, she continued to reside with her parents and hence, the husband was constrained to file the Family Suit on the ground of cruelty contending that depriving the husband of his matrimonial rites has resulted in cruelty to him. 2.2 The Family Court, Vadodara, upon framing of the issues at Exh.57, permitted both the parties to lead their respective evidences and accordingly, both husband and wife have rendered their oral testimony vide Exhs.33 46 respectively. 2.3 After considering evidence on record, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the husband had suffered no cruelty at the hands of the wife and thus dismissed the Family Suit. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant-husband, referring to the pleadings, submitted that though the husband had performed his part of duty towards marriage, when the wife was pregnant, had gone to her parent’s place and did not return even after an attempt was made by the husband and his family members to bring her back. It is also submitted that an attempt for reconciliation was also made with the help of senior members of the community. At that time, for a brief period, the wife did return to matrimonial house, but again left matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant thereafter drew attention of this Court to the evidence on record in the form of deposition of the husband, which is as per the pleadings on record. At that time, for a brief period, the wife did return to matrimonial house, but again left matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant thereafter drew attention of this Court to the evidence on record in the form of deposition of the husband, which is as per the pleadings on record. She drew attention particularly to the notice issued through Advocate dated 07.08.1996 and submitted that attempts were made by the husband to bring back the wife to matrimonial home and that she had not even cared to respond to such notice, thereby depriving the husband from his matrimonial rights, which amounts to cruelty. 3.2 It is further submitted that the marriage is of 1993, the separation was from 1994 and the petition for divorce was filed in 2010 and therefore, almost for the period of 20 years, the husband and wife are residing separately and now there is no life left in the marriage and therefore, even on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the case of the husband for divorce deserves consideration. 3.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant relied on following judgments of the Apex Court to support her case for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage:- I. In case of Romesh Chander Vs. Savitri (Smt), reported in (1995) 2 SCC, 7. II. In case of K.Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A.Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC, 226. III. In case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC, 511, on the point of mental cruelty. 4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-wife submitted that considering the evidence on record, especially deposition of the wife, it is evident that there is no irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It is submitted that on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the family members, the wife had actually gone and resided at the matrimonial home. It is submitted that it is on account of the cruelty meted out to her by her in-laws that the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home. By drawing attention to the evidence of the wife, especially the cross-examination, he submitted that the family members of the husband were doubting the character of the wife of such an extent that they were prepared to disown the only child out of the wedlock. By drawing attention to the evidence of the wife, especially the cross-examination, he submitted that the family members of the husband were doubting the character of the wife of such an extent that they were prepared to disown the only child out of the wedlock. In such situation, according to learned Advocate for the respondent-wife, the wife was justified in not to continue with residing at her matrimonial home. 4.1 Learned Advocate for the respondent-wife relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ramchander Vs. Ananta, reported in 2015 (2) Scale, 634 and submitted that for making out a ground of cruelty, it is necessary to bring on record a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is unsafe for him or her to continue with the matrimonial relationship. He submitted that in the instant case, what is recorded by way of evidence, only indicates a formal wear and tear in married life and that no instance, specific or cumulative, is pointed out to suggest cruelty by wife to the husband. He also relied upon judgment of this Court in case of Pramodkumar C.Shah Vs. Rajulaben Pramodkumar Shah, reported in 2013 (2) GLH, 360 on the same issue. 5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused evidence on record. The claim of divorce by the husband is on the ground of cruelty and the pleadings contain averments regarding the wife leaving matrimonial home, her misbehaviour with the relatives of the husband and her adamant conduct of continuing to reside with her parents rather than residing in the matrimonial home. From the pleadings, it appears the case was that though the husband was ready and willing to perform his matrimonial duties and was in fact, performing such duties, the wife was totally non-responsive and had decided and was residing separately, thereby depriving him of his matrimonial rights, which according to him, amounts to cruelty and therefore, entitled to the decree of divorce. Perusal of the evidence of the husband at Exh.33 also indicates that the same is in complete support of the averments made in the plaint. However, if the deposition of the wife at Exh.46 is perused, especially the cross-examination, strangely, the case of the husband takes a different turn, wherein questions after questions are posed to the wife pertaining to her chastity and character. However, if the deposition of the wife at Exh.46 is perused, especially the cross-examination, strangely, the case of the husband takes a different turn, wherein questions after questions are posed to the wife pertaining to her chastity and character. The deposition in cross-examination suggests that even questions were put to the wife with regard to paternity of the son born out of the wedlock. When such evidence is coming on record, especially through the cross-examination of the wife by the husband, this Court is of the view that doubting of the character of the wife gives justified reason to the wife to reside separately out of her matrimonial house. Therefore, the observations made by the Family Court in this regard after referring to the evidence of the wife in great detail need not be interfered. In view of this discussion, the case of the husband of mental cruelty on account of depriving him of his matrimonial rights will not hold any good. 6. Insofar as case of the husband that the wife was non-responsive to the attempts made by the husband to reside with him, is also far from the evidence on record as the legal notice dated 07.08.1996 issued by the husband through his Advocate, though not responded to, but thereafter, the wife had started residing with the husband in the matrimonial house from 15.11.1996 onwards. Therefore also, it cannot be said that the wife was not inclined to honour her duty towards the marriage. 7. The judgments relied upon by learned Advocate for the appellant to claim divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not supported by any pleadings or evidence on record. Perusal of the deposition of the husband as well as the wife is sufficient to satisfy this Court that there is no irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The judgment relied upon by learned Advocate for the appellant to claim divorce on the ground of irretrievable marriage may not help the case of the husband either on pleadings as well as on law as the Apex Court in both the cases has categorically held that the direction to dissolve the marriage was in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This Court finds that there is no statutory mode recognizing ground of breakdown of marriage as ground valid for annulling the marriage by divorce. This Court finds that there is no statutory mode recognizing ground of breakdown of marriage as ground valid for annulling the marriage by divorce. In case of Samar Ghosh (supra), the Apex Court in para No.101 has laid down for guidance instances based on human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the case of mental cruelty. The Apex Court proceeds to give illustrative instances which can be considered as mental cruelty. The perusal of the evidence on record in the instant case does not satisfy this Court that any of the illustrations mentioned in para No.101 could be attracted to the facts of this case. Moreover, it is the observation of this Court that from the deposition of the wife, in fact, the wife is meted out with cruelty. Therefore, it is not expected that the husband can derive advantage of his own wrong, which principle, even the Hindu Marriage At, more particularly Section 23(1)((A) recognizes. 8. In view of he aforesaid, no fault can be found in the judgment and order of the Family Court. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.