JUDGMENT : S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order of the Family Court, Udaipur rejecting the appellant's application under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter "the Act"). The court held that the appellant (hereafter "the husband") was not entitled to divorce as he failed to prove that the respondent (hereafter "the wife") treated him with cruelty or that she had deserted him. 2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant and the respondent were married on 09.02.1989 at Badgaon according to Hindu customs and rites. A girl was born on 11.01.1993 out of wedlock; she was named Ms. Mitu (who is presently about 26 years of age). The marriage of the appellant and the respondent/wife was not successful and hence, the appellant filed for divorce on two counts, i.e. cruelty and that the wife had deserted him. 3. The husband alleged that since the beginning of the marriage, the respondent/wife used to pressurize him to separate from his joint family. The appellant alleged that time and again, the respondent/wife used to quarrel with him and his family members as he did not yield to her demand of leaving his parents' house. He alleged furthermore, that most of the time, the respondent/wife used to live with her parents and that she and her family members did not even inform him and his family about the birth of his daughter, Mitu. The appellant and his family, on hearing the news, went to see the new-born and convinced the respondent/wife to return to her matrimonial home. The respondent/wife then lived with the appellant and his family from 11.04.1993 till 07.07.1993. It is alleged that even during this time, the wife used to pressurize the appellant to move out of his parents' house and live separately. However, he again opposed this as he felt that better care could be given to their daughter if they lived with the whole family. The appellant alleges that the respondent/wife left for her parents' house on 07.07.1993 without any reasonable cause and she continued to live there till May 1995. 4. The appellant also alleged that the respondent/wife did not return when his father met with an accident on 18.04.1995 and she only came back on the death of the appellant's father on 04.05.1995. The appellant alleges that the respondent/wife left for her parents' house on 07.07.1993 without any reasonable cause and she continued to live there till May 1995. 4. The appellant also alleged that the respondent/wife did not return when his father met with an accident on 18.04.1995 and she only came back on the death of the appellant's father on 04.05.1995. During this time, the appellant alleges that the respondent/wife did not do any household chores and on top of all of that, she used to beat up their young daughter. Again, after living at her matrimonial home for one and a half months, the respondent/wife left for her parents' house and she continued to live there till April 1998, for almost three years. The respondent/wife however came back on the appellant's insistence when his sister was getting married on 29.04.1998. However, due to ongoing fights regarding various matters, the respondent/wife finally left for her parents' house on 17.05.1998 and did not come back. The main ground on behalf of the appellant in his application for a decree of divorce was that the respondent/wife did not want to live with the family of the appellant and wanted to live separately which came under the definition of cruelty. 5. The respondent/wife even filed a complaint against the appellant and his family members under Sections 406, 498(A), 313, 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. She had alleged in that complaint that she was beaten up and booted out of the house on 17.05.1998. She had alleged that the appellant and his family members had demanded dowry, had constantly beaten her up and mentally and physically tortured her, which made her leave the house of the appellant and his parents. She had alleged to being subjected to torture and harassment, and that the torture had started when a daughter (Mitu) was born to her and in fact, the appellant and his family had even forced her to secure an abortion earlier. Even though the complaint was filed against the appellant and his family members, however, six members of his family were dropped as accused due to lack of any evidence against them. 6. The concerned criminal court had recorded evidence and conducted the trial based on the complaint of the wife. Even though the complaint was filed against the appellant and his family members, however, six members of his family were dropped as accused due to lack of any evidence against them. 6. The concerned criminal court had recorded evidence and conducted the trial based on the complaint of the wife. After considering the materials and the submissions, the court was of the opinion that the prosecution had not presented enough evidence against the appellant and had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court had further observed that there were irregularities in the narrative of the wife and her parents. The court was also wary of the fact that the wife refused to get her medical examination despite levelling allegations, in her complaint that she was brutally beaten up on 17.05.1998. It was further observed that PW 1 and PW 2 too did not support the respondent/wife. Therefore, the court acquitted the appellant of all charges and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case of dowry harassment, cruelty and abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The respondent/wife resisted the divorce proceeding. In her reply to the application for divorce, she stated that the appellant and his family members used to constantly beat her up and torture her and that she had no other choice than to leave the house of the appellant. She alleged that the appellant and his family had harassed her for giving birth to a girl and even did not come to see the new-born for six months. She further alleged that the moment she gave birth to a girl, the appellant and his family were unhappy as they wanted a boy. She denied the husband's allegation that she had ever demanded that he should leave his parents and live separately with her and their daughter. She further submitted in her reply, that since the beginning of her marriage to the appellant, she suffered at the hands of her husband and his family members for not bringing dowry and that on the fated day of 17.05.1998, the appellant had mercilessly beaten her up and even tried to electrocute her. The respondent averred that she had been sent to her parents' house and that it was never her choice to leave the house and desert the appellant. The respondent averred that she had been sent to her parents' house and that it was never her choice to leave the house and desert the appellant. However, the wife still maintained that she wants to be married to the appellant for her and her daughter's future. 8. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed by the Family Court: "a. Had the behaviour of respondent towards the appellant been cruel as described in the application? b. Had respondent-wife Mrs. Girija, deserted appellant-Husband Mr. Lalit Joshi for two year period continuously without any reasonable cause, immediately before filing application? c. Relief?" 9. The Family court rejected the appellant's plea on both the grounds. The appellant in support of his application for divorce had examined two witnesses and the respondent/wife had examined five witnesses. Further, four documents were exhibited by him and seven documents were exhibited by the wife. After both the parties led evidence, the Family court was of the opinion that the appellant had failed to prove his case and hence, he was not entitled to a decree of divorce. On the ground of cruelty, the court was of the opinion that merely asking the husband to live separately from his family did not amount to cruelty. The court held that moreover, the appellant had also failed to prove the charge of the respondent/wife creating pressure on him to do something that he did not want to do. It was also observed that the respondent/wife had filed a case of dowry harassment against the appellant, however, he was only acquitted because he was "given the benefit of the doubt". 10. On the second count of desertion (if the respondent/wife continuously without any reasonable cause deserted the husband for a period of two years, before the filing of the application for divorce), the family court was of the opinion that the appellant failed to prove the same. He had only presented two witnesses in his favour; one was the appellant himself (AW 1) and the other one was his brother, Omprakash (AW 2). The family court held that the appellant failed to prove the fact that the respondent/wife had been living at her parents' house continuously for two years through any strong or cogent evidence. He had only presented two witnesses in his favour; one was the appellant himself (AW 1) and the other one was his brother, Omprakash (AW 2). The family court held that the appellant failed to prove the fact that the respondent/wife had been living at her parents' house continuously for two years through any strong or cogent evidence. It was pointed out by the court that the respondent/wife had contradicted the husband and had deposed that it was in fact the husband who had left her in her parents' house because she did not fulfil the demands for more dowry and because she gave birth to a girl. Further, court held that according to the Hindu customs and beliefs, the first delivery of most women happens at their parents' house and the appellant and his family members never once went to bring her back after the daughter was born. In fact, it was admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination that he never went to bring back the respondent/wife from her parents' house during the years 1995-1998 and never even tried to bring her back from 1998 till the present day. Hence, the court concluded that it was the appellant who deserted her and not the other way around. 11. The appellant's main contention is that the family court failed to appreciate the fact that the wife submitted several complaints against the appellant. It is submitted that she wrote letters to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, cabinet ministers and also to the head of the department where he worked. She even wrote to the District Administration and persuaded them to not issue an appreciation certificate to the appellant on Independence Day. The appellant further submits that in these complaints, the respondent-wife levelled wild allegations against him and even a plain reading of the letters would show that they were written by her to tarnish his image and to bring him to social ridicule. Another argument by the appellant is that the wife initiated criminal proceedings against him and his family members, due to which he suffered mental agony for nearly two years. Besides the criminal complaint, she addressed several complaints to various authorities, urging his department to take action against him. 12. Another argument by the appellant is that the wife initiated criminal proceedings against him and his family members, due to which he suffered mental agony for nearly two years. Besides the criminal complaint, she addressed several complaints to various authorities, urging his department to take action against him. 12. It is submitted by the appellant that because of the constant fear and apprehension of false complaints being filed against him, he suffered mentally for years and this amounts to mental cruelty. He was constantly under fear of disciplinary action being taken against him by his department. On 04.01.2001, cognizance of one such complaint made by the wife was taken by the Chief Minister of Rajasthan who referred the said matter to the District Collector (Vigilance), City Udaipur. The collector referred the matter further to the Additional District Magistrate, City Udaipur. The ADM, City Udaipur after due enquiry, sent a letter dated 03.03.2001 and submitted a report to the District Collector. The report of the ADM observed that there was no substance in the complaint of the respondent-wife. 13. The second issue that the Family court did not decide in favour of the appellant is that the respondent/wife in fact deserted the appellant and their matrimonial home on 17.05.1998. The Family court held that it was the appellant/husband who deserted his wife and daughter. The appellant argues that the family court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/wife was constantly making complaints against the appellant; criminal complaints and complaints to various authorities. She tried to ruin his career and reputation, so the question of the respondent residing with him did not arise. Further, the Family court failed to appreciate that in the circumstance that she wanted to reside with the appellant, she would not have resorted to such tactics to ruin the reputation of the appellant and his family. The respondent was guilty of deserting the appellant without any reasonable cause. 14. It was argued that it is not a secret that the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since almost 22 years now. They have not been a part of each other's lives. During the hearing of this appeal, efforts were made by this Court for reconciliation between the appellant and the respondent, however, even the best efforts of the court failed. They have not been a part of each other's lives. During the hearing of this appeal, efforts were made by this Court for reconciliation between the appellant and the respondent, however, even the best efforts of the court failed. The matter was even referred to mediation so that the parties could reach an amicable settlement, that too was unsuccessful. That the daughter of the parties got married during the pendency of this appeal is also an admitted fact. 15. It is argued on behalf of the wife, that a repetition of allegations of cruelty or desertion does not ipso facto result in their proof. Underlining that it was the unacceptable behaviour of the husband which compelled the wife to move out of the matrimonial home, it was submitted that the wife was constrained to even initiate criminal proceedings. No doubt, the criminal proceedings did not lead to the appellant's conviction. That only meant that the court was not satisfied that there existed proof beyond reasonable doubt about allegations of cruel behaviour of the kind contemplated by Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 16. It was argued on behalf of the wife, that letters were written by her, expressing willingness to return to the matrimonial home; nevertheless, the appellant did not show any interest or initiative to take her back. It was argued that the appellant never once showed any interest in the progress or welfare of his daughter. It was submitted that contrary to the appellant's pleading, he was invited for the daughter's wedding and even in the invitation card, his name was printed as the bride's father. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial court that the husband was disentitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty or desertion, should be affirmed. 17. The relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 are extracted below: "Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 13 Divorce. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial court that the husband was disentitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty or desertion, should be affirmed. 17. The relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 are extracted below: "Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 13 Divorce. (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party (i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or ************ ********* *********** 18. The Supreme Court, in a series of judgments has explained what is meant by cruelty as envisaged under the Act. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 it was observed as follows: "12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party." (emphasis supplied) 19. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 the court held that "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. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (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." (emphasis supplied) 20. In the present case, the appellant and the respondent have lived separately since almost 22 years. There has absolutely been no cohabitation. The record shows that the respondent/wife repeatedly addressed complaints against the husband to various authorities alleging ill-treatment and abuse at his hands. Furthermore, the Chief Minister of Rajasthan even directed the ADM, City Udaipur to conduct an enquiry into the matter at hand, further humiliating the appellant. The respondent/wife further wrote a letter to the government asking them to not confer an appreciation certificate to him for excellence at his work place. 21. The letter dated 03.03.2006 (which was brought on record) of the ADM, Udaipur to the District Collector even observed that- "Respondent had also mentioned in her letter that the award given to the appellant on 15 August 1999 should be abrogated. In this context observation of the letters reflects that Appellant is posted as Jr. Engineer in the Water Department and due to his appreciable work he was recommended by Head of the water department, on which he was selected by the district level committee and then Appellant Mr. Lalit Joshi was honoured on 15 August 1999. This was right. Following complaint is presented on the estrangement between Respondent and Appellant which is baseless. So the report is presented for information." 22. Clearly therefore, the allegations levelled by the respondent/wife were found to be absolutely baseless and false. In one of these letters dated 04.10.2002 written to Dr. Girija Vyas (Member of Parliament), the respondent/wife had also asked her to help in the marriage by intervening. This letter, in the opinion of this court, appears like an afterthought. The respondent/wife alleged harassment and torture by the appellant and his family, which culminated into a criminal complaint. The judgment dated 25.08.2000 acquitted him. It is not for this Court to comment or deconstruct the judgment given by the trial court in the complaint lodged by the respondent/wife. It is clear to the court that the appellant was acquitted due to lack of credible evidence. 23. The judgment dated 25.08.2000 acquitted him. It is not for this Court to comment or deconstruct the judgment given by the trial court in the complaint lodged by the respondent/wife. It is clear to the court that the appellant was acquitted due to lack of credible evidence. 23. In the context of matrimonial cases, the Supreme Court in A. Jayachandra (supra) held that "the concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes." 24. What is to be seen and examined by this court, therefore is whether the conduct of the respondent/wife amounted to 'mental cruelty'. We find the answer to this question in the affirmative. The main intention of the respondent/wife behind writing letters to the Chief Minister and the government appears to be to malign the appellant-husband's name and humiliate him. 25. Marriage, like every other human relationship- and perhaps more so, than others- is based on mutual trust, confidence and mutual respect. While differences may exist: oftentimes serious ones, as long as respect for each other remains, the marital bond will survive. However, if one spouse indulges in conduct which tends to undermine their confidence in the other, or undermine respect for the other- in the eyes of the world, the marriage bond would weaken. The appellant deposed that he has been in agony and under constant apprehension that he would be proceeded against departmentally, ultimately losing his government job due to the wife's complaints. The appellant deposed that he has been in agony and under constant apprehension that he would be proceeded against departmentally, ultimately losing his government job due to the wife's complaints. That the appellant was excelling in his employment is clear from the certificate conferred on him by the State Government. The wife time and again attacked the character of the appellant, disrupting his life and job, while continuing to live separately. 26. This court notices that the independent witness, who deposed at the behest of the wife (i.e. Tara NAW 2) stated that she was a tenant of the respondent- wife's father, who knew her for over 15 years. In her examination in chief, she deposed that the wife had narrated about her physical torture and her return to the natal home. However, she admitted that the husband had never quarrelled or demanded dowry from the wife or her family members, in her presence. Apart from her deposition, the spouses deposed to their partisan version of the matter. 27. Significantly, however, the wife made some important admissions in her deposition. She stated, about the complaints made to authorities that: "I had written XGA.2 and 3 letters to M.P. Girija Vyas. I had also written letter XGA.3 to the chairman of our Audichiya society. I had written letters against the petitioner, to other people also and demanded justice. I had never complained about Lalit. I had written to the collector about this matter. There was an investigation on my complaint against Lalit. Lalit is a government servant. Lalit was commended for his work on 15 August, against which I had complained. In response the to the complaint, an order XGA 4 was issued, based on the report of inquiry by the Additional District Magistrate." 28. In Chetan Dass v Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well.." 29. This court notices that the wife, in her deposition stated her willingness to return to the matrimonial home. However, the statement ipso facto is in conflict with her conduct. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well.." 29. This court notices that the wife, in her deposition stated her willingness to return to the matrimonial home. However, the statement ipso facto is in conflict with her conduct. She did not depose why, after the exoneration of the husband, in the criminal case, she did not return to him; nor did she state what impelled her to level false complaints which tended to humiliate him. This conduct also establishes that she deliberately kept herself away from the husband's company: it amounts to desertion. 30. Mental cruelty was explained in Praveen Mehta v Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 in the following terms: "Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (ia) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other." 31. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other." 31. In Savitri Pandey v Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73 again, it was iterated that: "Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other." 32. In Gananath Pattnaik v State of Orissa (2002) 2 SCC 619 it was observed as follows: "The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case." 33. In the present case, it is also a fact that many years- i.e. more than two decades have elapsed since the spouses parted company. A. Jayachandra (supra) had observed that for conduct to be called cruelty, it may be trifling, but what is crucial is the seriousness or gravity and its capacity to cause mental agony to the other spouse: "insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it." 34. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it." 34. In Vinita Saxena v Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778 the Supreme Court held that: "As to what constitutes the required mental cruelty for the purposes of the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the court perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period of time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer." 35. In the opinion of this court, the wife's repeated attempts to malign and injure the reputation and lower the respect of the appellant, in the eyes of his co-workers, and her persistent attempts to injure his career, through complaints to members of Parliament, and his superior officers, led even to an inquiry. In that proceeding, the appellant was exonerated. She even tried to obstruct the awarding of commendation which the government issued to him for his good work. These no doubt had a deleterious effect in the appellant's mind; he, not unreasonably complains having remained apprehensive: in the shadow of fear of losing his employment. Such complaints and public inquiries would not only result in humiliation but tend to lower the respect that the appellant had with others in the community. These acts cannot but be characterised as cruelty. 36. Forcing the appellant to live with the respondent would, in these circumstances, amount to cruelty. The appeal was filed in the year 2004, and since then, the road has been a long and winding one. There seems to be absolutely no chance that the marriage can be saved. These acts cannot but be characterised as cruelty. 36. Forcing the appellant to live with the respondent would, in these circumstances, amount to cruelty. The appeal was filed in the year 2004, and since then, the road has been a long and winding one. There seems to be absolutely no chance that the marriage can be saved. The appellant and respondent have been living separately for the past 22 years, and the marriage is a mere fiction: a hollow shell. In the meanwhile, the respondent/wife has levelled complaints against the appellant, which has led to the appellant fearing for his reputation and job and in some instances, he was severely humiliated by her as well. 37. A.P. Herbert in The Holy Deadlock mused about bad marriages and how the law did not facilitate an exit to the same and wrote that- 'A bad bargain that must be stuck to as long as life lasted. Was there any other lifelong bargain in which a mistake was irrevocable, from which the law provided no honourable escape at all?' There is no point in flogging a dead horse. The sanctity of a marriage can be protected when the marriage exists, however, this marriage has been over since a long time, primarily on account of the cruel behaviour of the respondent/wife. 38. For the above reasons, this court holds that the decree of divorce should be granted to the appellant, both on the count of cruelty and desertion, because of the respondent's wilful behaviour. The respondent is entitled to move for alimony, separately in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act; in the event an application is filed the same shall be disposed of by the competent court within six months of presentation. The appeal is consequently allowed in these terms; the marriage between the parties hereby stands dissolved.