JUDGMENT Per: Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013 rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.86 of 2008 (Sanjeeva Kumar v. Smt. Sushma Maurya), whereby the said Court has dismissed the petition moved by the petitioner-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act'). 2. The facts of the case are that the parties to the matrimony were married on 28.10.2001 as per Hindu rituals. Both are Government Servants. Appellant is at present posted on the post of Fire Officer at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and the respondent is posted as Assistant in L.I.C., Branch Office, Cannaught Place, Chakrata, Dehradun. Only after few days of marriage the disputed erupted between the parties on the issue of employment of respondent-wife. The respondent was not cooking food and would deprive her husband from his conjugal rights under influence of her parents. She also started to pressurize the appellant to live separately, i.e. separate from the joint family residence. Despite the defiant attitude shown by the respondent, all the love and respect was given to her by the appellant and his family members. He even got himself transferred at Dehradun from Haridwar and started to reside with the respondent by taking a house on rent. This house was only a few meters away from the house of parents of the respondent due to which the in-laws of the appellant kept on interfering regularly in the marital life of the appellant and ultimately the respondent-wife started living with her parents while the appellant stayed alone in a rented house. She even did not enquire about the welfare of appellant when he was posted at Mussoorie from 27.06.2003. There were no relations of husband and wife between the parties. The appellant was transferred to Rudraprayag and thereafter, at Kashipur and every time the respondent refused to accompany and reside with him. She also levelled allegations against the appellant of having illicit relationship with a widow and made false complaints to the higher officers of the appellant which were dismissed by the concerned officers finding no veracity therein. No child is born out of the wedlock. 3. She also levelled allegations against the appellant of having illicit relationship with a widow and made false complaints to the higher officers of the appellant which were dismissed by the concerned officers finding no veracity therein. No child is born out of the wedlock. 3. The wife appeared before the Court below, filed her written statement 55B, and denied most of the allegations made against her in the divorce petition. According to her the marriage was solemnized at Dehradun in which her parents spent more than their capacity and on the demand of appellant, a Maruti Car was given to him by getting it financed just two days before the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the parents of appellant started to poke fun at her for bringing less dowry. Nevertheless, she continued to bear all this to save her matrimonial life. In June, 1999 she gave an application for her transfer to Dehradun from Haridwar and she was posted as such in December, 2001. They both took a house on rent at Rajpur Road, Dehradun but the appellant on the pretext of house being small left the house with the assurance that he would find a new house. Then she searched another house which was only at a distance of 1 k.m. from her office where they both started to live as husband and wife. After some time the parents of appellant came at Dehradun and started to taunt, abuse and even beat her for their demand of dowry. When she showed incapacity of her parents to give dowry, she was thrown out of the house, as a result of which she started residing at her parents' house. She also went to the appellant's place of service at Mussoorie regularly. In the year 2003, the appellant wrote a letter to her that she need not come to Mussoorie as he will give her a notice for divorce soon on which she gave him a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her father and then he agreed to keep her with him. In December, 2003, she also got herself transferred at Mussoorie and began to stay with the appellant in a rented house. When the appellant was transferred to Rudraprayag and thereafter, to Kashipur, she could not accompany him due to non-availability of Government accommodation. In December, 2003, she also got herself transferred at Mussoorie and began to stay with the appellant in a rented house. When the appellant was transferred to Rudraprayag and thereafter, to Kashipur, she could not accompany him due to non-availability of Government accommodation. In December, 2006, the appellant came to Mussoorie and told her that he has become the F.S.O. and would solemnize another marriage where a dowry of Rs.10 lakh is on offer, hence, she need not come to Kashipur. On being worried by his behaviour, she moved an application on 26.02.2007 before the Women Helpline on which the parties were called for counseling on 07.03.2007. Thereafter, she went to Kashipur in September, 2007 and then on several occasions till the month of July, 2008 and she spent her married life with the appellant at Kashipur. On 14.08.2008, after staying for some days at Kashipur, she returned to Dehradun and got information that the appellant has taken ex-parte divorce from her from the Court at Haridwar. Then she moved a restoration application in that case through her advocate, which was allowed and the case was restored. 4. The Court, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed the following issues:- A. Whether the respondent has committed cruelty with the appellant as is pleaded in the plaint? B. If so, to what relief he is entitled for? 5. To prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as PW-1, Deepak Kumar as PW-2 and Gopal Rawat as PW-3. On the other hand, the respondent-wife, in support of her pleadings, produced herself as DW-1 and Keshav Nath as DW-2. In addition thereto, other documentary evidence were also filed. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, the Court below has dismissed the petition moved by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-husband has come up in appeal before this Court. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 28.10.2001 at Dehradun as per the Hindu rites. It is the allegation of the appellant that the respondent had not performed the matrimonial obligations towards the appellant. 10. 9. It is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 28.10.2001 at Dehradun as per the Hindu rites. It is the allegation of the appellant that the respondent had not performed the matrimonial obligations towards the appellant. 10. It is again an admitted fact that at the time of the marriage the appellant was working in Fire Brigade office at Dehradun while the respondent was working in the LIC Department at Haridwar and after the marriage on the request of the respondent she was transferred to Dehradun. 11. It is admitted by the appellant that he had been transferred to Mussoorie from Dehradun and the respondent lived with him at Mussoorie for two years. He also admitted that the respondent had also been posted at Mussoorie at the relevant time. It is admitted by the appellant that he was transferred to Rudraprayag for a short period. Thereafter, he was posted at Kashipur. It is also stated that the appellant is working as F.S.O. at Kashipur while the respondent-wife is posted as an Assistant in L.I.C. Branch Office, Cannaught Place, Dehradun. 12. Courts have to ensure that the matrimonial life continues to its entirety and husband and wife should consume their natural life, as far as possible. It shall, therefore, be necessary for the Plaintiff/ Petitioner who had approached the Court under Section 13 of the Act to establish that he was not at fault and made all efforts for continuance of matrimonial life. There shall be dual burden on the Plaintiff, first to prove his or her own conduct and efforts made for continuity for matrimonial life and secondly, it shall be necessary to establish that the conduct of other side is so impractical that it will cause irreparable loss and injury warranting dissolution of marriage. Keeping in view the provision contained in Sections 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, burden to prove the grounds with regard to divorce shall be on the Plaintiff to establish. There may be situation when both sides do not possess impeccable character or have indulged in unethical practices, then in such situation, it is for the court to decide the issue in a just and proper manner to secure the interest of both sides. There may be situation when both sides do not possess impeccable character or have indulged in unethical practices, then in such situation, it is for the court to decide the issue in a just and proper manner to secure the interest of both sides. In case, the Defendant in a divorce suit possess impeccable character and discharge her/his obligation in the manner which is expected from a person of common prudence or except some minor violence or incidence at the spur of moment, then in such situation, it shall not be proper for the Court to decree a divorce suit. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in “Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh" (2007) 4 SCC, 511, has laid down the following instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty":- “(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. (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. 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 sterilization 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. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." 14. Mental Cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical accuracy. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society and also depends on the status of the persons. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." 14. Mental Cruelty and its effect cannot be stated with arithmetical accuracy. It varies from individual to individual, from society to society and also depends on the status of the persons. What would be mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to a particular stratum of the society, may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a different stratum of society. The agonized feeling or for that matter, a sense of disappointment, can take place by certain acts causing a grievous dent at the mental level. The inference has to be drawn from the attending circumstances. 15. It is the allegation of the respondent that the parents of the appellant demanded dowry after the marriage and started torturing the respondent for the demands. It is also her allegation that the appellant-husband is a drunkard and he committed marpeet with the respondent and also abused her. He also tortured the respondent for demand of dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial house. The respondent stated in her statement that the appellant told her that now he is a senior officer and since no child was born out of the wedlock he is going to remarry and will get Rs.10 lakh from his marriage. 16. As per the statement of DW-1 Smt. Sushma, the appellant made demand of dowry and tortured the respondent on many occasions. He is interested to leave her and marry somewhere else. But these allegations were not proved by the respondent. It is not proved on which date and month and year the appellant made demand of dowry from the respondent. Apart from that, the allegation of the respondent that the appellant is going to remarry is also baseless. The respondent did not prove to whom the appellant is going to remarry. While the respondent admitted in her statement that she lived with her husband in different places where the appellant was posted and she also admitted in her statement that in the year 2008 she went to Kashipur and lived with her husband but such admission of the respondent shows that the appellant was always very much interested to keep the respondent with him but despite several attempts made by the appellant the respondent did not make any effort to live with her husband at Kashipur. Apart from that she made false allegations against her husband regarding the second marriage and demand of dowry. It has also come in evidence that she often enquired about the character of her husband from his servants and subordinates. If any demand of dowry had been made by the appellant and if any harassment was committed by the appellant then the respondent had a right to lodge an F.I.R. or complaint against the appellant and his parents but no such complaint was filed neither against the appellant-husband nor against the parents of the appellant by the respondent. Apart from that the appellant also alleged that the respondent-wife had levelled the allegations against him regarding extra-marital relation with another lady. In this regard, PW-3, Gopal Singh Rawat has said in his statement that the respondent-wife had enquired from him whether there is any extra-marital relations of appellant with any woman. These roving enquires and false allegations certainly come within the definition of ‘cruelty'. The respondent was also voluntarily living separately from her husband and made false allegations of demand of dowry and harassment against her husband. 17. It is also an allegation of the respondent that in October, 2002 the appellant committed marpeet with her and ousted her from the house but there is no evidence on record which shows that the appellant has committed marpeet with the respondent and ousted her from the house. While the respondent admitted in her statement that in the year 2007, the appellant called her many times from Kashipur, which shows that the appellant has no intention to live separately and he always wanted to live with the respondent but the respondent never tried for her transfer from Dehradun to Kashipur. She also admitted that she did not visit to her husband at Kashipur since July, 2008. 18. From the evidence it is clear that the respondent is living separately from the appellant-husband since 2008 and is not interested to live with her husband. She made false allegations regarding marpeet and demand of dowry against her husband and in-laws. She also made false allegations against her husband regarding extra-marital relations with another lady. She did not make any effort for her transfer from Dehradun to Kashipur. She also made false allegations against the appellant that the appellant is going to remarry. She made false allegations regarding marpeet and demand of dowry against her husband and in-laws. She also made false allegations against her husband regarding extra-marital relations with another lady. She did not make any effort for her transfer from Dehradun to Kashipur. She also made false allegations against the appellant that the appellant is going to remarry. These allegations are baseless and no evidence was given by the respondent to prove these allegations. From this kind of attitude and treatment it can be inferred that the husband has been treated with cruelty and definitely he has faced ignominy being a Fire Safety Officer in police department where one enjoys social status. His marital discord has also influenced his workplace. It also adversely affected his reputation. The allegations levelled by the respondent-wife certainly must have hurt the self-respect and human sensitivity. The lower Court did not notice these allegations and rejected the divorce petition without any basis. 19. From the perusal of the evidence, we are of the firm opinion that the parties are living separately for the last 11 years and the respondent is not willing to reside with the appellant. There is no hope to restore the matrimonial relations between the parties. 20. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be allowed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, and the marriage, solemnized between the parties on 28.10.2001, is hereby dissolved. 21. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.