JUDGMENT : A. Borthakur, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.D Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 39(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (‘S.M. Act’, for short), Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HM Act’, for short) and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CP Code’, for short), is directed against the judgment and order, dated 27.07.2018, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup at Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) case No. 155/2016, whereby the appellant/petitioner’s prayer for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the respondent was dismissed. 3. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. By occupation the appellant is a Senior Executive in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (‘IOC’ for short) and the respondent is an Advocate since 2003. Their marriage was registered on 11.09.2006 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati under the S.M. Act. Thereafter, they performed the social marriage, on 14.09.2006 at a wedding hall at Guwahati. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working at Panipat Oil Refinery in Haryana under the IOC. The case of the appellant is that after marriage, on 15.09.2006, the respondent came to stay at the appellant’s ancestral home at Silpukhuri, Guwahati and soon after the respondent had entered her bed room, she refused to allow the appellant to enter into it. After much persuasion, the appellant managed to enter into the room. However, the respondent almost immediately started abusing him in a very loud voice using vulgar and undignified language and hit him on his head with her fist accusing his inability to take her for honeymoon. On 16.09.2006, in the marriage reception, held in a hotel at Guwahati, the respondent started behaving abnormally in presence of the family members, invitees etc. by breaking the stalks of flowers and put those flowers on her head. Later, at the close of the reception party, the respondent carefully picked up the gift items that were given to her by her close family members and kicked aside the rest of the gift items. Thereafter, the respondent went back with her family members to her father’s residence. Later, at the close of the reception party, the respondent carefully picked up the gift items that were given to her by her close family members and kicked aside the rest of the gift items. Thereafter, the respondent went back with her family members to her father’s residence. Again, on 17.09.2006, when the appellant visited the residence of the father of the respondent for the purpose of observing social ritual ‘Ath Mangala’, the father of the respondent insulted the appellant saying things about his deceased father and rebuked him for not going on a honeymoon trip. 4. The appellant further contended that his aged and ailing mother was staying with him at the official quarter of Guwahati Refinery at Guwahati, Assam and thereafter, at Panipat Oil Refinery, Haryana, but the respondent constantly insisted him to take only her to Panipat leaving his mother behind at Guwahati, to which he disagreed as there was none at Guwahati to look after her. Therefore, he took both his mother and the respondent to Panipat. However, the respondent, during their entire journey to Panipat kept on shouting at the appellant which was most embarrassing and humiliating for him in presence of the other passengers. Further, immediately after arrival at his official quarter at Panipat, the respondent created a ruckus and childishly demanded meat curry for her food, but as the appellant could not arrange the same at that time, the respondent got angry and abused the appellant with filthy language. 5. The appellant also contended that once he took the respondent for a honeymoon to Dalhousie, a hill station, with a great hope that the respondent would change her behaviour in the pleasant environment, but there was no change in her behaviour, rather she became more mischievous, violent and abusive towards the appellant. Once back in Panipat, the respondent asked the appellant to impregnate her with a male child immediately and added that she had not come to Panipat to be his wife. In a cruel and arrogant tone, the respondent also told the appellant that once she becomes pregnant, she would return to her father’s house at Guwahati and after delivery, would stay there for 3 (three) months and further, would take a decision on returning or not returning to her matrimonial home. In a cruel and arrogant tone, the respondent also told the appellant that once she becomes pregnant, she would return to her father’s house at Guwahati and after delivery, would stay there for 3 (three) months and further, would take a decision on returning or not returning to her matrimonial home. Thus, the respondent had shown to be mentally unstable and foul mouthed creating chaos and anarchy at the appellant’s home by shouting nearly everyday, which even caused loss of peace and tranquility beyond his home to the neighbors too. 6. The appellant contended that the respondent used to go out of house alone and roamed here and there during night hours beyond 10 p.m. causing much anxiety to the appellant and his mother. Alleging specifically, the appellant contended that on 09.04.2007, when the appellant left his quarter for his official duty on 2nd shift, that is, from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., the respondent in his absence went out alone and returned at around 10.15 p.m. and when the appellant’s mother enquired her about the delay, the respondent got infuriated and gave a push to her mother-in-law and as a result, her left thigh bone got fractured. But, the respondent neither informed this incident to him nor did she make any arrangement for her medical treatment. After returning to the official quarter at around 11 p.m., the appellant having found his mother lying on the floor with great pain, shifted her to Refinery Hospital and on being referred by the attending doctor, again shifted her to Gandhi Hospital at Panipat, where she underwent operation for left femur bone fracture and for fixing a steel implant and had to stay in the hospital for about 3 months. During this period of hospitalization, the respondent neither visited her nor even enquired about her health condition. The appellant also alleged that the respondent always craved for meat in every meal and in the event of inability to make the same available, she used to be violent and abusive. The respondent constantly posed herself to be aggressive, quarrelsome, violent and a person of desperate nature at home and at the appellant’s office. The appellant also alleged that the respondent always craved for meat in every meal and in the event of inability to make the same available, she used to be violent and abusive. The respondent constantly posed herself to be aggressive, quarrelsome, violent and a person of desperate nature at home and at the appellant’s office. On 12.01.2014, at about 10 a.m. and again at around 2 p.m., the respondent accompanied by her family members entered the appellant’s apartment and created a nuisance shouting slang and obscene words at the appellant and his aged ailing mother, where, in the compelling situation, the neighbours and other residents of the apartment finally had to drive away them from the said apartment. The appellant, after having sustained frequent humiliations at his office, lodged a complaint with the Noonmati Police Station from office on 15.12.2012. 7. According to the appellant, all efforts made for reconciliation have failed due to repeated acts of aggression and harassment of the respondent during the conjugal period of about six months and after she has been living separately for about eight years since 17.04.2007. Therefore, in the backdrop, inter alia, of the above facts and circumstances that erupted after their marriage, the appellant has sought for dissolution of marriage with the respondent. 8. The respondent contested the proceeding by filing a written statement denying all the allegations made by the appellant against her. In her written statement, the respondent, inter alia, contended that the appellant is not a simple man as claimed by him, but a luxurious person combined with bad behaviour and loose character. The respondent alleged that after performing Hindu Marriage rituals and ceremony, the appellant took her to stay in the appellant’s shared house at Silpukuri, Guwahati. However, the married elder sister of the appellant did not allow the respondent’s relatives to accompany her, who was the newly married bride. The appellant’s mother did not even perform any “Griha Pravesh” ceremony to welcome the bride. Few minutes later, the appellant’s mother came near to the respondent to open her gold jewellery. When the respondent refused to open her gold jewellery, the appellant’s mother became violent. The appellant’s elder sister did not allow the respondent to enter and have relation with her newly married husband, i.e. the appellant and keep the respondent separated from the appellant. Few minutes later, the appellant’s mother came near to the respondent to open her gold jewellery. When the respondent refused to open her gold jewellery, the appellant’s mother became violent. The appellant’s elder sister did not allow the respondent to enter and have relation with her newly married husband, i.e. the appellant and keep the respondent separated from the appellant. Next day, when the respondent’s relatives went to the appellant’s house, the appellant’s mother did not allow them to see the respondent and misbehaved with them for not paying any cash amount to the appellant’s mother. The respondent further alleged that the petitioner’s elder sister and her husband started abusing and humiliating the respondent for not fulfilling their cash demand. The appellant’s brother-in-law even passed adverse comments saying that the colour of the respondent’s maxi was not of his choice. On 17th September 2006, on the day of “Athmangla”, the appellant visited his in-law’s house alone. The respondent’s father blessed the appellant by giving valuable golden chain, ring etc. and also asked the appellant to take money from his father-in-law for honeymoon. Soon after that, the appellant started humiliating and shouted loudly. All the neighbours came out from their house on hearing appellant’s loud and abusing words. The respondent’s father at once fainted and the relatives had to call a Doctor. It was further alleged that the appellant took his married elder sister and her husband for honeymoon to Amritsar and left the respondent at his official quarter. None of the appellant’s relatives, either paternal or maternal, was present at the reception party on 16.09.2006. The respondent came to know that everybody hates the appellant’s mother due to her cruel and adamant nature. The appellant and his family members used to utter abusive words. The appellant’s mother used to call the respondent as “street-worker”, when she visited the temple for peace. The appellant’s mother called her neighbour’s domestic help as ‘Lakshmi’, because the respondent’s nick name is ‘Lakshmi’. The respondent further alleged that it is the habit of the appellant to throw false allegations against both his 1st and 2nd wives. The 1st wife insisted the appellant to leave the appellant’s mother at Guwahati. The appellant and his mother are living luxurious lives for nearly 9 years and forced the respondent to lead a destituted miserable life by driving her out of the matrimonial home. The 1st wife insisted the appellant to leave the appellant’s mother at Guwahati. The appellant and his mother are living luxurious lives for nearly 9 years and forced the respondent to lead a destituted miserable life by driving her out of the matrimonial home. The appellant’s mother immediately after arrival at his official quarter started rebuking the respondent and did not allow the respondent to take dinner sets with her and further, provided the respondent to eat only 2 pieces of potato, 2 pieces of patal, 2 spoon rice, 2 spoon dal and deprived her from evening tea, as a result of which the respondent suffered from malnutrition. It is also alleged that the appellant’s married elder sister was unable to have children and as such, both the 1st and 2nd wives of the appellant were also not allowed to have children. The appellant went to Honeymoon taking 1½ days leave for Dalhousie, but the appellant’s family members gave strict instructions to the appellant to live separately from the respondent at Dalhousie. Belatedly, the respondent realized that she was cheated into agreeing to marriage with the mentally unstable and foul mouthed appellant. The neighbours of the locality loved and respected the respondent and even told the respondent that Bengali and other Community people boycotted the appellant and his mother for their cruel treatment on his 1st wife. The neighbours offered tea and snacks to the respondent, because they knew that when the appellant went to attend his evening shift duty, the respondent’s mother-in-law didn’t allow the respondent to have tea. Appellant’s mother used to shout loudly everyday and pointed fingers to the respondent and used to say to her that “Toi namat tar tiri, kamat aaku nai. Moi Chief Justicear suwali, mor hatat Jatin Choudhury ase” and also told her that they brought her only as slave bride. The respondent alleged that the appellant’s mother took away the Stridhan from the respondent obtaining a hand note from her stating that she (respondent) wilfully delivered to her to keep the jewellery. The appellant and his mother everyday harassed her for not fulfilling their unimaginable dowry demands which consisted of expenditure in undertaking journey to Italy, cash amount etc. The respondent alleged that the appellant’s mother took away the Stridhan from the respondent obtaining a hand note from her stating that she (respondent) wilfully delivered to her to keep the jewellery. The appellant and his mother everyday harassed her for not fulfilling their unimaginable dowry demands which consisted of expenditure in undertaking journey to Italy, cash amount etc. The respondent in her written statement also stated that she used to wake up at 4 am to cook small amount of rice, curry and fish items which were regularly eaten by the appellant and his mother in each and every meal. The appellant and his mother had also thrown out the appellant’s 1st wife. Everybody of the locality knew that the appellant’s mother kept her daughter-in-law half starved, but herself used to eat secretly the food items in her room from her cupboard. The appellant’s mother used to slap the respondent, if the respondent cooked food and became jealous, if the respondent went to bed. The appellant’s mother used to shake the broken furniture and made noise using kitchen utensils. The appellant had the habit of kissing his mother immediately after he returned from his office. The respondent had to take iron tablets with her own money. The appellant at the instigation of his mother and married elder sister, hurt in the left eye of the respondent, for which she viewed white flash and till now she has been undergoing treatment for the said eye. On 09.04.2007, the respondent went to a nearby campus tea-stall to take tea on her own, but the appellant’s mother started blaming and abusing the respondent after the appellant had returned from his office and instigated the appellant to beat the respondent and while doing so, the appellant’s mother accidently had a minor fall. The appellant’s sister came to Panipat with intent to drive the respondent out of her matrimonial house and to disturb their marital life and instead of taking care of her mother, she ate ice cream with her husband in an ice cream parlour. The appellant’s sister cooked food in their kitchen and gave the left-over food items to the respondent. The appellant’s sister came to Panipat with intent to drive the respondent out of her matrimonial house and to disturb their marital life and instead of taking care of her mother, she ate ice cream with her husband in an ice cream parlour. The appellant’s sister cooked food in their kitchen and gave the left-over food items to the respondent. Again, on 16.04.2007, the appellant’s married elder sister and her husband with intent to drive the respondent out of her matrimonial home, forcefully took away the respondent’s 4 suitcases containing silk (‘pat’) clothes, valuable items, without allowing the respondent to take her those belongings. The respondent also stated that her ailing father along with relatives went to Delhi for some medical treatment. After hearing from the respondent that her in-laws drove her out, the respondent’s father picked her from the street and took her to the hotel to have food. The appellant supported his family members and instead of giving the respondent company, he drove her out and deserted her with no intention of taking her back. The appellant and his mother frequently paid visits to some destinations in an Innova car for enjoyment. Once they paid visit to Surajkund mela leaving the respondent alone without giving her a penny. From Surajkund mela, they brought expensive clothes for the appellant’s married elder sister and husband. The respondent asked the appellant to give money to buy one maxi, but the appellant’s mother and his married elder sister started shouting and they instigated the appellant not to give money and therefore, the respondent had to wear Gamosha in order to hide the worn out maxi. The respondent also alleged that in the course of the maintenance case, the appellant misbehaved and shouted loudly to his own advocate Mr. Nilim Pal Das and created a scene in the Court premises. Due to the appellant’s such aggressive nature, the appellant had to change 13 advocates in a row. Further, many senior officers used to report to the respondent that the appellant used to throw tantrums and quarrelled when the senior officers engaged him in field works and so they transferred the appellant to Guwahati Refinery feeling sympathy towards her. The appellant tried to avoid maintenance allowance, but after hearing the verdict of the Court, he started vague acting. Further, many senior officers used to report to the respondent that the appellant used to throw tantrums and quarrelled when the senior officers engaged him in field works and so they transferred the appellant to Guwahati Refinery feeling sympathy towards her. The appellant tried to avoid maintenance allowance, but after hearing the verdict of the Court, he started vague acting. The doctors prescribed the appellant to undergo CBT (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy), so as to enable him to change his negative thinkings, feelings and emotions. The respondent came to know from one dermatologist of Arati plaza that the appellant created nuisance and disturbed their neighbours, when the society members asked for Rs.25,000/-for repairing of the transformer. The neighbours also reported the respondent’s family members that the appellant and his mother appointed domestic help but they never paid any wage. According to the respondent, the appellant is guilty of commission of repeated matrimonial crimes against women from the year 2001 to 2016. Therefore, the respondent has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. Upon pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues (extracted): “(1) Whether the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty? (2) Whether the respondent has deserted the appellant? (3) Whether the appellant is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for? (4) To what relief/reliefs, the parties are entitled?” 10. In course of hearing, the appellant submitted evidence in-chief on affidavit of 5 (five) witnesses including himself and the respondent cross-examined them at length. The respondent, on the other hand, adduced evidence of 3 (three) witnesses and the appellant cross-examined them at length. 11. Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court overlooked the evidence on record, which substantiates the fact that the respondent left the house of the appellant causing injury to his mother in the year, 2007 and came down to Guwahati, which manifestly indicates her voluntary desertion after perpetrating cruelty on her old and ailing mother, that is, her mother-in-law, which in turn also amounts to cruelty to her husband. In this context, Mr. Purkayastha referred to the definition of ‘cruelty’ defined in Section 13 (i-a) of the HM Act and relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs),reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 . Mr. In this context, Mr. Purkayastha referred to the definition of ‘cruelty’ defined in Section 13 (i-a) of the HM Act and relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs),reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 . Mr. Purkayastha further submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the conduct and behaviour of the respondent was extremely stubborn and unreasonable and the cumulative effect thereof constantly put the appellant to suffer extreme frustration, which amounts to mental cruelty making their marital life irretrievably broken down without any chance of re-union. Therefore, relying on the principles laid down in the said V. Bhagat and in Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 , Mr. Purkayastha vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances abundantly available on evidence, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage with the respondent by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 12. Per contra, Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that no divorce under the HM Act is permissible on mere allegations of cruelty and desertion unless substantiated by evidence. Mr. Phukan further submitted that mere sensitivity of the allegations made by the appellant against the wife/respondent herein is not sufficient to hold the view that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty or that she deserted his society without any reasonable excuse as emerged from the evidence adduced by both sides in the case. According to Mr. Phukan, the learned counsel for the respondent, under the Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament and implies union of two hearts and minds, which cannot be broken down on the allegations of some isolated trivial incidents between the couple over the years of marital tie, which are of the nature of ordinary wear and tear of marital relationship. In the backdrop of the overall facts and evidence of both sides, Mr. Phukan pertinently referred to and relied on the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Savitry Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 ; Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301 and Suman Singh Vs. Sanjay Singh, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 85 and submitted that the instant appeal is devoid of any merits for dissolution of marriage. 13. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 ; Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301 and Suman Singh Vs. Sanjay Singh, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 85 and submitted that the instant appeal is devoid of any merits for dissolution of marriage. 13. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the appellant’s prayer for decree of divorce rests on allegations of cruelty meted out to him and his mother by the respondent and the respondent’s desertion without reasonable excuse. 14. It may be mentioned that section 13 (i-a) of the HM Act specifies cruelty as one of the grounds of divorce. In so far as relevant, Section 13 reads as follows; “ 13. Divorce- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the 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) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or………..” 15. The term ‘cruelty’ as one of the grounds of divorce contemplated in the Section includes repeated acts comprising physical and mental cruelty leading to a reasonable apprehension of danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, as opposed to the ordinary wear and tear of marital life. In other words, cruelty is a course of conduct of one spouse which must adversely affect the other spouse of such a magnitude and severity that it is impossible for the spouses to live together. 16. In V. Bhagat (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court succinctly explained what amounts to mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act thus; “16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.” 17. In Praveen Mehta (supra), referring to the principles laid previously in Savitri Pandey (supra) and V. Bhagat (supra) and others, the Apex Court further illustrated the term ‘cruelty’. In paragraph 21 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed; “21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) 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 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.” 18. In para 9 of Savitri Pandey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the essential conditions of ‘desertion’ as herein below extracted: “9. Following the decision in Bipinchandra case this Court again reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena by holding that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other’s consent, and without reasonable cause. For the offence of desertion so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. For holding desertion as proved the inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; that is to say the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation. 19. In the case in hand, the appellant alleged of repeated cruel treatment by the respondent towards him and his old and ailing mother and two incidents of physical assault on him and his mother, which happened allegedly in the house at Guwahati; mental cruelty in course of the journey from Guwahati to the official quarter of the appellant at Panipat in Haryana as well as while living at the matrimonial home at Guwahati. The respondent refuted all these allegations made in the petition as stated above and termed the same as false allegations. 20. The respondent refuted all these allegations made in the petition as stated above and termed the same as false allegations. 20. PW-1, the appellant, through his evidence in-chief on affidavit supported the allegations made in the petition and corroborated by his mother PW-2, Dipty Roy Choudhury. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that his previous wife, that is, the first wife, resided with him for 7 (seven) months and thereafter, on 11.09.2006, he married the respondent. He denied all the suggestions put by the respondent, which were related to various forms of mental cruelty perpetrated on her to the extent of driving her out of his house on 18.04.2007 and stated that since then they are living separately. 21. PW-2, the mother of the appellant, alleged of stubborn and abusive behaviour of the respondent, day and night and sustaining of fracture injuries at three places of the right thigh at Panipat Refinery quarter, due to respondent violently pushing her resulting in her falling down, which required several years of medical treatment. 22. PW-3, Kunal Mazumdar, brother-in-law of the appellant and PW-4, Monideepa Roy Choudhury, elder sister of the appellant, through their evidence in-chief on affidavit, corroborated, in general, the evidence of PW-1, the appellant, as a whole, in regard to the various forms of misbehaviours on the part of the respondent, inside and outside home. 23. P.W.-5, Ramayal Jha, a tenant of the appellant, also deposed against the respondent alleging that she occasionally created nuisance in the neighborhood by demanding entry to his rented house, causing damage to the garden by plucking flowers and vegetables and insulting his family calling by their community. 24. The respondent Hiramoni Talukdar Roy Choudhury (D.W.1), through her evidence in-chief on affidavit, denied all the allegations and in turn, imputed the allegation of cruelty on the part of the appellant and her mother-in law. In cross-examination, she denied all the suggestions put to her by the appellant. It also appears that the respondent is a highly educated lady with qualification M.A., L.L.B. and an Advocate by profession. 25. DW-2, Niva Talukdar, sister of the respondent and DW-3, Kashyap Medhi have corroborated the evidence of DW-1, the respondent. DW-3, in his short cross-examination, could not, however, say the name of the parties and as to why the case was filed. 26. 25. DW-2, Niva Talukdar, sister of the respondent and DW-3, Kashyap Medhi have corroborated the evidence of DW-1, the respondent. DW-3, in his short cross-examination, could not, however, say the name of the parties and as to why the case was filed. 26. On scrutiny of the case record and the respective evidence in support of the allegations and the counter allegations, it transpires that the demeanour of the respondent inside and outside her matrimonial home from the initial days of their marriage starting from 15.09.2006 till she was allegedly driven out of the appellant’s house or she allegedly voluntarily deserted the society of the appellant, are seriously questioned. The series of incidents that occurred in the first night of the respondent’s entry in the matrimonial home on 15.09.2006; marriage reception held in a hotel at Guwahati, on 16.09.2006; quarrel that allegedly took place, when the respondent insisted the appellant to take her only to Panipat leaving behind his old and ailing mother at home at Guwahati; the continuous shouting by the respondent throughout her journey from Guwahati to Panipat in Haryana along with the appellant and her mother in-law, which put him in embarrassment and humiliation; the respondent took money everyday from the appellant, which he paid in the interest of maintaining peace at home and in the residential colony at Panipat and then she moved around and returned home in the late night; the allegation that she is not a good cook and further, that the respondent used to crave for meat in every meal and became violent and abusive if the same was not made available etc. which undoubtedly show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent over matters which certainly cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of every marital life. On the other hand, the appellant has also not examined any independent witness specific to those allegations, which occasionally happened at his home at Guwahati and the official quarter at Panipat in Haryana or elsewhere, where they stayed. 27. On meticulous scrutiny of each of the allegations made by the appellant and the evidence adduced by both sides, it appears to us that the appellant/ husband has been making absurd and unfounded trivial allegations against the conduct of the respondent/wife, which the latter reacted naturally. 27. On meticulous scrutiny of each of the allegations made by the appellant and the evidence adduced by both sides, it appears to us that the appellant/ husband has been making absurd and unfounded trivial allegations against the conduct of the respondent/wife, which the latter reacted naturally. Therefore, we find that occasional normal quarrels arising out of mutual differences in the conjugal life of the appellant and the respondent were not sufficient to amount to mental cruelty. Further, the alleged physical assault on the appellant and his mother being not established by some direct or proximate eyewitness, we find that this allegation is also difficult to be legally accepted. Accordingly, we reject the allegations of physical and mental cruelty by the respondent perpetrated on the appellant and his mother. 28. With regard to the ground of desertion as another ground for divorce, Section 13 (1) (i-b) of the H.M. Act provides that such desertion must be for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The explanation to the aforementioned subsection provides that the expression “desertion” means the desertion without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such deserted party and includes the wilful neglect. 29. In the instant case, the husband/appellant herein filed the petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion against the wife/respondent herein on 06.08.2015. The appellant alleged that the respondent deserted him since 17.04.2007 and for more than eight years she had not cohabited with him, after living together as husband and wife only for six months. However, the appellant (P.W. 1) in his evidence in-chief on affidavit has not stated this material fact, but in cross-examination denied the suggestion of the respondent that on 16.04.2007, he with the help of his sister and brother-in-law drove away her from his house after perpetrating cruelty on her, which stand she has taken in her written statement. The respondent (D.W.-1) in her evidence in-chief on affidavit and in cross-examination, asserted the aforementioned allegations. 30. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is noticed that the appellant had not made any efforts by way of persuasions or resorting to filing of appropriate proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights to bring back the respondent to his society, who allegedly left the matrimonial home without his consent and reasonable excuse. 30. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is noticed that the appellant had not made any efforts by way of persuasions or resorting to filing of appropriate proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights to bring back the respondent to his society, who allegedly left the matrimonial home without his consent and reasonable excuse. The ground of cruelty for divorce by the appellant has also failed. The appellant appears to have waited till expiry of the statutory period of two years to file the divorce proceeding against the wife (respondent herein) after about 9 years of driving her out of his house on 17.04.2007. There is no evidence to show that the appellant’s efforts for reunion with the respondent also failed. Such conduct of the appellant proved that the wife/respondent was driven out of his society with an intention to keep her away from him permanently. 31. For the reasons, set forth above, we hold that the respondent/wife was driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant/husband and the allegations of cruelty, physical and mental, by the respondent wife to the appellant and his mother are found to be disproved. 32. Before parting with the appeal, we are inclined to quote a few lines of para 42 of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Kollam Chandra Sekhar Vs. Kollam Padma Latha, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 225 , which are as follows: “42. Marriage is highly revered in India and we are a nation that prides itself on the strong foundation of our marriages, come hell or high water, rain or sunshine. Life is made up of good times and bad, and the bad times can bring with it terrible illnesses and extreme hardships. The partners in a marriage must weather these storms and embrace the sunshine with equanimity.” 33. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and the impugned judgment and order is affirmed. Send back the LCR.