JUDGMENT Srivastava, J.--1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2015, passed by 4th Additional Distt. Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 283A/2002, whereby a decree of dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) has been passed and has ordered to pay permanent maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month and return utensil or Rs. 5000/-. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/wife had filed an application under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce against the appellant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is not in dispute that parties had entered into wedlock in the year 1997 according to Hindu rites. It is alleged by the respondent/wife that her husband i.e. present appellant had willfully deserted her and since then, she is living with her widow mother at Jabalpur. She has contended in her application that soon after their marriage, her husband had started torturing her physically blaming that she is having an illicit relationship with some another person. She has further contended that when she went to her matrimonial house, she was beaten up by her husband raising a demand of Rs. 20,000/-. In spite of best efforts by the respondent/wife and her family members, the appellant has refused to live with her, therefore, it is impossible for her to live with the appellant/husband. So she made a prayer to pass a decree of divorce. She filed an application for permanent alimony and to return the utensil, which were given at the time of marriage. 3. In reply, the appellant/husband has denied all the allegations leveled against him submitting that the respondent/wife had lived with him for about a period of eight months after their marriage. He had never tortured her, whereas she used to quarrel with him under the influence of her mother. Twice he had tried to take her back to his home but every time she has refused to come with him. He has also contended in his reply that he was informed about her pregnancy when she had left his house and had aborted later on. Further, he is ready to take her back to his home and wants to live together, therefore, he has prayed before the trial Court for dismissal of the application. 4. He has also contended in his reply that he was informed about her pregnancy when she had left his house and had aborted later on. Further, he is ready to take her back to his home and wants to live together, therefore, he has prayed before the trial Court for dismissal of the application. 4. Considering the above mentioned pleadings, the trial Court had framed the issues and recorded evidence. Appellant- Shambhu Prasad, Ghasiram father of appellant and Ramkripal Rajak have been examined as defendant’s witnesses being DW-1, DW2 and DW-3 respectively and respondent-Tulsa Bai (PW1), Gulab Bai (PW2) and Santosh Kumar Rajak (PW3) have also been examined. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, a finding has been recorded that the respondent/wife had been able to establish and prove cruelty and desertion by the appellant/husband and on that account, the application seeking divorce was allowed and permanent alimony so also the order to return utensil or Rs. 5,000/- has been passed. 5. The above finding has been challenged in this first appeal by the husband and the only question which arises for adjudication before this Court is whether the finding in respect of cruelty and desertion by the husband, as recorded by the trial Court, is legally sustainable or not. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree of divorce. The trial Court wrongly held that the appellant committed cruelty with the respondent/wife whereas Tulsa Bai (PW1) has clearly stated that the wife has never lodged any complaint regarding cruelty committed by her husband i.e. present appellant. He has further submitted that learned Court below has given a wrong finding that the appellant/husband has deserted his wife, whereas the appellant was ready to keep her with him and had made many efforts in this regard, but the respondent /wife did not agree to live with him and she is living at her parental home on her own will. Gulab Bai (PW2) has stated in her cross-examination that even if the appellant is ready to take the respondent/wife back to his home, she does not wish to send her back. Gulab Bai (PW2) has stated in her cross-examination that even if the appellant is ready to take the respondent/wife back to his home, she does not wish to send her back. Learned Court below has also disbelieved the oral and documentary evidence led by the defence witnesses i.e. Ghasiram (DW2) and Ramkripal Rajak (DW3) and passed the decree of divorce, hence, the same is not in accordance with law and liable to be set-aside. 7. None appears for the respondent. 8. Heard the argument of appellant's counsel and perused the record. 9. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the condition that the petitioner spouse can not be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. The law has been explained in the case of Dinesh v. Shantibai [ 2011(3) JLJ 299 = 2011(4) MPLJ 710 ], in which Division Bench of this Court has held that- “The cruelty has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, but by way of several judicial pronouncements the concept and scope of physical and mental cruelty has been elaborated, it is the settled position in law that the word cruelty has been used in section 13(1)(i) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behavior in relation to or in respect of matrimonial differences of obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. If the cruelty is physical, it is a question of fact and if it is mental, the enquiry should begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse." 10. Regarding cruelty, the Court below elaborately dwelt upon the evidence led by the respondent/wife and found it to be proved. The respondent/wife has alleged that the appellant/husband has beaten her by axe. He used to beat her and also raised demand for Rs. 20,000/-. She has also stated in her deposition that the appellant/husband was in illicit relationship with some other lady. Her Mother-Gulab Bai (PW2) and Santosh Kumar Rajak (PW3) corroborated her evidence. Though in the cross-examination, the respondent/wife so also her mother have accepted that they have never lodged any complaint for the above mentioned act of the appellant/husband, but their evidence seems to be true and reliable. Her Mother-Gulab Bai (PW2) and Santosh Kumar Rajak (PW3) corroborated her evidence. Though in the cross-examination, the respondent/wife so also her mother have accepted that they have never lodged any complaint for the above mentioned act of the appellant/husband, but their evidence seems to be true and reliable. The word ‘cruelty has to be understood in ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct, 'cruelty' could be easily established. Respondent-Tulsa Bai (PW1) deposed before the Court in her evidence that appellant husband was habitual to beat her so this act of appellant comes in under the purview of cruelty. 11. Looking to serious nature of allegations made by the wife so also the statements of witnesses which support her version, these findings when tested on the evidence available on record, do not suffer from any perversity. 12. So far as the issue of desertion is concerned, section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, requires desertion for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce petition. Bare reading of section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, two conditions must be there- i. Factum of separation and ii. Intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. 13. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant and respondent are living separately since 1998. In her deposition, the respondent/wife has stated that the appellant/husband had never turn-up to take her to his home, whereas on the contrary, when she went to his house, he fired her out of the house and also beaten her. In paragraph-5 of her deposition, the respondent/wife has stated that due to ruthless behavior of her husband, she does not wish to live with him and want to take divorce. Gulab Bai (PW2) who is the mother of respondent/wife, in her para- 4, has deposed that she is not ready to send her daughter with the husband/appellant. The fact remains that for last 20 years, there is no contact between the appellant and the respondent. From reading the para-9 of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the Court has made efforts under section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for reconciliation between the parties, but it was unsuccessful. The fact remains that for last 20 years, there is no contact between the appellant and the respondent. From reading the para-9 of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the Court has made efforts under section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for reconciliation between the parties, but it was unsuccessful. It is also apparent that during the pendency of this appeal, no effort has been made by the appellant/husband for reconciliation, which indicates that it is case of irretrievable break-down of marriage. Appellant husband Shambhu Prasad in his evidence stated that he did not get information about her wife that why she is living separate from him since 1998. So this statement shows his intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 has held that- “Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The Court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce Courts are presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised 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 do 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 do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.” 14. The same view has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the matter of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 411], Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit [(2006) 6 SCC 778]. Thus, from the above analysis, it is established that the instant case is a clear case of irretrievable break down of marriage. So ground of desertion is proved. 15. Appellant did not challenge the findings of learned trial Court for permanent alimony or return utensils or Rs. 5,000/-. This finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 16. Considering the nature of allegations made by the wife/respondent against her husband i.e. present appellant, statements of witnesses so also looking to the fact that they are living separately for about last 20 years and the appellant had not come forward for reconciliation and voluntarily deserted the respondent, there is no possibility of their reunion, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the marriage has break down irretrievably. 17. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.