JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. The unsuccessful husband has preferred this appeal U/s.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment dtd.17.7.2012 passed in C.P. No.140 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in dismissing the petition U/s13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce against the wife - respondent. 2. The facts not in controversy are that the husband, a service holder under BSNL, married respondent - wife as per Hindu rites and custom on 12.5.2008. Both of them were blessed with a son born on 16.2.2009. The wife stayed for a fortnight in the house of her father-in-law and then was taken by the husband to his service place at Srikakulam. Since 4.7.2008 the petitioner has been staying at his father's house at Bhubaneswar. The divorce petition by husband was filed on 20.4.2010 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 3. Now descending to the controversial facts, the case of husband - petitioner is that wife did not like to reside with the plaintiff in his paternal house for which she was brought to the service place at Srikakulam where he was working as Jr. Accounts Officer of BSNL. The respondent was very adamant. She did not behave properly to his parents. She did not do the household work, did not prepare food in time, did not take care of husband. Instead, over silly matter, she misbehaved not only the husband but also his parents addressing them as stupid, miser, ugly fellow, etc. She insisted for separate residence at Bhubaneswar. The husband did not agree. She left the petitioner at her own sweet will on 4.7.2008. The husband - petitioner took several attempts to get her back but all was in vain. A child was born on 16.2.2009 while she was in her father's house. Such information was not given either to the husband or to his family members. The parents of the husband went to the house of her father where she was staying for SORNAKHETRA day but they were all misbehaved. The local gentries were engaged to find an amicable settlement of the dissention. It yielded no fruit. On 10.01.2010 the plaintiff - husband lastly requested the respondent to join with him. She refused. As a last resort this proceeding for divorce was filed. 4. The respondent - wife denied the allegation of cruelty and desertion. The local gentries were engaged to find an amicable settlement of the dissention. It yielded no fruit. On 10.01.2010 the plaintiff - husband lastly requested the respondent to join with him. She refused. As a last resort this proceeding for divorce was filed. 4. The respondent - wife denied the allegation of cruelty and desertion. Her case is that she was taken to the service place on 28.5.2008. She led her marital life there peacefully. On 30.6.2008, during medical checkup, both spouses came to know that she was pregnant. The husband insisted her to terminate pregnancy and also to bring Rs.3 lakhs and 10 tolas of gold ornaments towards dowry. She was threatened. On 4.7.2008 the husband brought her from Srikakulam to Bhubaneswar by train and left her in her parents' house. During her stay in her father's house, a child was born on 16.2.2009 in the hospital. Intimation was given to the husband and his parents. They did not turn up. The husband did not take any step to restore the conjugal life with her. She alleged that her husband and his parents had treated her with cruelty. She prayed to dismiss the divorce petition. 5. Learned Judge, Family court framed seven issues including issue No.IV and V on the point of cruelty and desertion. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of husband - petitioner including himself as P.W.1. His father is P.W.2. The mediator is P.W.4. Other witnesses are either friend and neighbours of the husband - petitioner. Seven documents are exhibited on behalf of husband which include certified copy of complaint case in 1.C.C No.374 of 2011 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar filed by the husband against the wife and her father and brother. It was filed on 2.2.2011 for the incident dated 26.12.2010. Ext.2 is the certified copy of complaint case in 1.C.C. No.27 of 2011 filed on 31.3.2011 by the husband - petitioner against the father-in-law Nityananda for the incident dtd.09.03.2011 in the court of S.D.J.M., Phulabani. On behalf of wife - respondent 3 witnesses were examined including herself as R.W.1, while R.W.2 is her father and R.W.3 is her maternal uncle. Three documents are exhibited including pregnancy test report dtd.30.6.2008 by the doctor at Srikakulam. 6. Lower court record reveals that wife - respondent had filed interim maintenance petition vide CMA No.180 of 2010 on 25.8.2010. On behalf of wife - respondent 3 witnesses were examined including herself as R.W.1, while R.W.2 is her father and R.W.3 is her maternal uncle. Three documents are exhibited including pregnancy test report dtd.30.6.2008 by the doctor at Srikakulam. 6. Lower court record reveals that wife - respondent had filed interim maintenance petition vide CMA No.180 of 2010 on 25.8.2010. In that proceeding the husband - petitioner had filed a petition U/s.151 Cr.P.C. on 09.02.2011 praying for DNA test of the parties along with the child. The ground for such prayer as mentioned at paragraph 2 of the petition is extracted below:- "2. That, the O.P. / Husband asserts that the O.P. / Husband has / had no successful sexual relationship with the petitioner, due to her non-cooperation, during the period in which the petitioner lived with the O.P. / Husband, i.e. from 12.5.2008 to 4.7.2008. Whereas the petitioner gave birth to a male child and that gives rise to a reasonable doubt that the petitioner had become pregnant through other source and the O.P. is not the father of the child. Therefore, the O.P. is willing to undergo D.N.A. test of t he parties concerned." The wife had filed objection and finally the court rejected such petition vide order dtd.16.5.2011. The husband - appellant, as P.W.1, has admitted such fact in his cross-examination. 7. Learned Judge, Family court has recorded finding as to the admitted fact that a son was born to both parties on 16.2.2009. With regard to desertion, it is found that statutory period, i.e. "not less than 2 years" had not elapsed as the wife had left the house of husband on 4.7.2008 and the divorce petition was filed on 20.4.2010. On the point of cruelty, learned Judge, Family Court has held that if the wife had not behaved properly, the husband would not have taken her to Srikakulam and the allegation of cruelty was omnibus in nature. It is also held that while petitioner - husband had pleaded that a male child was born from their wedlock, he had filed a petition for DNA test to humiliate and torture the wife - respondent and both the complaint cases (Ext.1 and Ext.2) were filed after the divorce proceeding without resorting to any report before police. According to the learned Judge, Family Court, those complaint cases were filed to create evidence for this divorce proceeding. According to the learned Judge, Family Court, those complaint cases were filed to create evidence for this divorce proceeding. The refusal of husband to accept the wife as stated in the evidence is indicative of his cruel conduct and his allegation of cruelty against the wife was spurious. Disbelieving the plea of cruelty and failure of desertion for want of 2 years separation, learned Judge, Family Court dismissed the petition for divorce. 8. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty for the appellant fairly submitted at the outset that plea of desertion, not accepted by learned Judge, Family Court is not contestable. His submission is that considering the complaint cases (Ext.1 and Ext.2) and Station Diary Entry (Ext.6) and refusal of wife to stay with the husband despite best efforts, learned Lower Court had committed error in not appreciating the evidence on its proper perspective and there are sufficient materials available on record to establish that wife - respondent had treated the husband in cruel manner by not preparing food. He relied upon a decision reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , Samar Ghosh and Jaya Ghosh to contend that husband had proved mental cruelty and both parties having remained separate for more than a decade, their marital tie should be snapped as it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Mr. Sukumar Ghosh repelled the above contention stating that husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong after subjecting the wife to mental cruelty by suspecting the parentage of the child. When the statutory grounds of cruelty and desertion are not proved, irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be the basis to allow the divorce. Learned counsel specifically submitted that dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage can only be done by invoking the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by Hon'ble Apex Court which is not available to the High Court. 10. We carefully perused the lower court record and evidence along with the materials available therein and patiently heard both the parties. Admitted facts are already catalogued supra. The plea of desertion, in view of candid concession made by learned counsel for the appellant, is not required to be examined in this appeal. The time essential to maintain such ground fall short admittedly. Admitted facts are already catalogued supra. The plea of desertion, in view of candid concession made by learned counsel for the appellant, is not required to be examined in this appeal. The time essential to maintain such ground fall short admittedly. The residue but sole ground of cruelty would decide the fate of this appeal. For that, the broader aspect of the evidence peculiar to the case needs to be appreciated. Marriage between the parties was held on 12.5.2008. The husband (P.W.1) has testified that after marriage both of them stayed in their house at Begunia and led happy conjugal life for a period of 12 days. When he wanted to go back Srikakulam, his service place, the wife accompanied him. She stayed in the quarter with him for 40 days. But she did not treat him properly, underestimated him, did not give food in time. On one occasion, she did not prepare food for his friend. He has further deposed that the wife deserted him on 4.7.2008 and while she was in her father's house, a child was born to her. He has admitted that the complaint cases (Ext.1 and Ext.2) were filed after filing of this divorce petition. In cross-examination he had admitted that he had not seen his son till the date of his deposition and he had filed a petition for DNA test to ascertain the parentage of the child. He has also stated that he would not accept his wife even if she is willing to stay with him. Per contra, the wife (R.W.1) has stated that at Srikakulam she stayed for 36 days and she was not treated properly and husband was insisting to terminate her pregnancy and on 4.7.2008 the husband brought her in Prasanti Express train and without going to her father's house, left her at railway station. 11. Given the gamut of evidence, it is established that after marriage both spouses stayed at Begunia for 15 days and thereafter at Srikakulam for 36 days. Medical checkup was done on 30.6.2008, i.e., 5 days before the wife left Srikakulam. The initial hiccup in marital life was blown out of proportion when complaint cases were filed after the divorce petition and prayer for DNA test was made by husband suspecting the character of the wife and parentage of the child. Medical checkup was done on 30.6.2008, i.e., 5 days before the wife left Srikakulam. The initial hiccup in marital life was blown out of proportion when complaint cases were filed after the divorce petition and prayer for DNA test was made by husband suspecting the character of the wife and parentage of the child. The act of mental cruelty has been alleged by both of them against each other. Such period was confined only for two months after marriage. The husband after birth of the child on 16.2.2009 had not taken any step to see the child till the date of his deposition in the court. Such a conduct along with the prayer to make DNA test amounts to humiliate the wife and child in public eye in the society. A wronged party cannot take advantage of his own wrong as provided U/s.23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which reads thus:- "23. Decree in proceedings. - (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that - (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and" The evidence of the petitioner - husband is not clinching that for a sustainable period, the wife used frequent rude language and neglected in such a degree that the marital life between them was absolutely intolerable. 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. But if such conduct is confined only for two months and that too, when wife was under the family way, it could not be accepted as a deviant behavior intolerable for the husband. Whatever is alleged by the husband, is nothing but trivial irritation and normal wear and tear of the married life and is not adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Whatever is alleged by the husband, is nothing but trivial irritation and normal wear and tear of the married life and is not adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Learned Judge, Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and no fault can be found if the same is weighed on the scale of physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status. The impact of prayer for DNA test has outweighed the trivial irritation and quarrelsome conduct of the wife alleged by the husband. Such an unprovoked grave conduct questioning marital fidelity could not have been condoned by granting divorce to the maker. The husband - petitioner was reckless and restless in filing complaint cases against the wife and her family members even after filing of the divorce petition. We affirm the finding of learned Judge, Family Court. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh case (supra) does not help the appellant in any manner in the facts and circumstance of the case as a differentia to the case at hand. 12. Irretrievable breakdown is no more a ground to dissolve a marriage by a decree of divorce U/s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On that score, the judgment impugned cannot be reversed. The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not available to this court. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Srinivash Kumar Vs. R. Shametha, 2019 SCConline(SC) 1320 has clarified the position of law in this regard in the following manner:- "7. This Court, in a series of judgments, has exercised its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which t he divorce could be granted. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife have been living separately for more than 22 years and it will not be possible for the parties to live together. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife have been living separately for more than 22 years and it will not be possible for the parties to live together. Therefore, we are of the opinion that while protecting the interest of the respondent-wife to compensate her by way of lump sum permanent alimony, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties." 13. In the wake of above analysis and settled position of law, we do not find any ground to interfere with in the impugned judgment. Accordingly the MATA stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Send back the L.C.Rs. I agree. S.K. Mishra, J.