JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Aggrieved husband is the appellant, since Title Matrimonial Suit No. 166 of 2011 instituted by him for decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 (ia) &(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2016 and decree dated 17.09.2016. 3. The case of the petitioner/appellant as pleaded before the learned Family Court is as under:- The case of the petitioner is that the parties after solemnization of their marriage on 14.06.2005 were blessed with a daughter. Petitioner asserted that on 20.01.2008 the Respondent left her matrimonial home along with her 'stridhan'. On 20.02.2008 the petitioner approached the Respondent and her family members to resume marital life but was assaulted by them. Respondent even lodged a false report in Balidih Police Station. A compromise took place thereafter between the parties and they resumed their conjugal life and moved on to Alwar (Rajasthan). However, Respondent continued threatening the petitioner and his family members to implicate them in false dowry case. On 07.05.2008 the Respondent without informing the petitioner again left for her parents' home and since then there is no cohabitation between the parties. 4. The case of the respondent-wife as pleaded before the learned Family Court is as under:- The Respondent on the other hand stated that after solemnization of their marriage, petitioner and his family members started demanding dowry from the Respondent on one or the other pretext and upon non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of matrimonial home and hence, she was compelled to file a criminal case being C.P. Case No. 638/2010 which is still pending. Since Respondent was having no source of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter, she filed a maintenance case being M.P. Case No. 82/2010 wherein vide order dated 06.08.2013 learned Family Court, Bokaro awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- to the minor child. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication by the learned Family Court; (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit? 3,000/- p.m. to the petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- to the minor child. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication by the learned Family Court; (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit? (iii) Whether the respondent has subjected cruelty to the petitioner/plaintiff by assaulting, abusing and threatening him on several occasions as pleaded in the plaint? (iv) Whether the respondent has willfully withdrawn herself from the society of the plaintiff without any reasonable cause since 07.05.2008 and has deserted him? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? During trial, appellant examined two witnesses. PW-1, Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma is the petitioner himself and P.W-2 Sukhdeo Mistri is father of the petitioner. Following documentary evidence were adduced on behalf of the petitioner-husband. Mark-Y is the letter vide Ref No. 191/10 dtd.04.10.10 of the Principal Chatra College, Chatra written to Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, Civil Court, Chatra through which some information regarding Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Sukhdeo Mistri has been furnished. In this letter, it has been mentioned that Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Sukhdeo Mistri, present address, Syal patratu, District- Hazaribag had enrolled himself for B.Ed. Training course in the sessions 2007-08 and his Roll No. was 89. His CLC has been enclosed with this letter. Marked- Y-1 is the xerox copy of CLC of said Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma, which was enclosed in the aforesaid letter. Perusal of this document reveals that date of birth of Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma is 11.10.1977 and he was a student of B.Ed. Training course for sessions 2007-08 of Chatra College, Chatra, his Roll No. was 82048. Marked-Y-2 is Xerox copy of application form of said Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma, for admission in B.Ed. Course in V.B. University. On behalf of the respondent-wife, three witnesses were examined in support of her case.. RW-1 Uttam Kumar Vishwakarma is the brother of the respondent, RW-2 Neelam Vishwakarma is the respondent herself and RW-3 Santosh Kumar Hembram is an independent witness. Learned Family Court took up the main issue i.e. issued no. Course in V.B. University. On behalf of the respondent-wife, three witnesses were examined in support of her case.. RW-1 Uttam Kumar Vishwakarma is the brother of the respondent, RW-2 Neelam Vishwakarma is the respondent herself and RW-3 Santosh Kumar Hembram is an independent witness. Learned Family Court took up the main issue i.e. issued no. (iii) and (iv) relating to cruelty and desertion and dealt with each one of them separately to come to a finding on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them that none of these grounds are made out. As regards the issue no. (iii) relating to cruelty, learned Family Court bifurcated the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner-husband on six different heads; (i) Excess interference of respondent's father and brother in the family matters of the petitioner and constant humiliation leading to mental agony. However, from evidence on record it was found that neither petitioner nor his father have whispered a single instance regarding interference in the family affairs of the petitioner by respondent's father and brother. (ii) On the second score, petitioner had alleged that the respondent's father and brother wanted him to live as 'Gharjamai' which was against his self-respect and caused mental agony. On this point, learned Family Court has taken note of the admission of the petitioner in para-29 of his evidence to the effect that respondent had three young brothers who are looking after their business and factory, whereas respondent appearing as RW-2 in para 7 & 8 of her evidence also specifically stated that her father and three young brothers were competent enough to manage their business. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the petitioner as 'Gharjamai'. Her brother RW-1 flatly denied the suggestion. This contention was also not convincing on the basis of rival evidence adduced by the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner alleged brutal assault after six months of the marriage. However, learned Family Court found that there was no complaint in this regard nor any independent witness has supported the occurrence. In fact, both the persecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 petitioner and his father, plaintiff witnesses, did not whisper anything about such occurrence. This allegation was also not established. (iv) Petitioner alleged cruelty asserting that at the time of birth of his daughter in parents' home of the respondent, petitioner was not informed. In fact, both the persecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 petitioner and his father, plaintiff witnesses, did not whisper anything about such occurrence. This allegation was also not established. (iv) Petitioner alleged cruelty asserting that at the time of birth of his daughter in parents' home of the respondent, petitioner was not informed. This was specifically denied by the respondent and in the written statement, it was averred that intentionally, the petitioner did not come to see the newly born baby nor took any care, though he was informed. On this score, though petitioner has assertion in his examination-in-chief but there was no cross-examination of the three witnesses of the respondent on this point. On the contrary, a counter allegation was made by the respondent that even after information, petitioner and his family members did not come to see the newly born child. This contention did not find support from the evidence on record and were shrugged aside by the learned Family Court. (v) So far the fifth instance of cruelty cited by the petitioner-husband is concerned, the learned Family Court found that allegations of assault upon the petitioner were contrary to the actual state of fact since it was the father of the respondent who had lodged a criminal case in which compromise took place between the parties and petitioner took his wife with him. There was no evidence regarding instigation by the respondent to her father and brother to assault the petitioner. (vi) On the sixth count of cruelty, petitioner had alleged that after respondent accompanied him to Alwar (Rajasthan) at his work place, she again started misbehaving, abusing and assaulting him in presence of his colleagues. The respondent-wife traversed the same and specifically referred to the enrollment of the petitioner in a B. Ed. Course at Charta College, Chatra as a regular student during the year 2007-08 and denied having gone to Alwar any time. On this count petitioner had deposed that on 22.02.2008 a compromise had taken place and petitioner started living separately along with respondent at Alwar in a rented house but she did not change her behaviour. He had further asserted that on 07.05.2008 he had gone outside his house and when he came back, he found that respondent had left the house and gone to her parents' home. He had further asserted that on 07.05.2008 he had gone outside his house and when he came back, he found that respondent had left the house and gone to her parents' home. Then on 08.05.2008 the next day petitioner came to know through a telephone call to the parents of the respondent that respondent had reached their place. On this count, learned Family Court was of the view that such an assertion was clearly not substantiated since it was unlikely that within a period of 24 hours she could reach Bokaro from Alwar, which was not connected by Air. In his cross-examination he had stated that the respondent stayed with him only for 2 to 4 days whereas in his plaint, he had stated that there was a compromise on 22.02.2008, whereafter parties started living together at Alwar. On 07.05.2008 respondent left Alwar without any information to him. There was apparent contradiction in the stand of the petitioner vis-a-vis his averment in plaint and evidence on this point. Petitioner's father did not say as to when his daughter -in-law had gone to Alwar and when she returned from there. Therefore, learned Family Court did not believe this assertion of cruelty also by the petitioner. The issue no.(iii) relating to cruelty by the respondent upon the petitioner was accordingly, answered against the petitioner. 6. On the issue of desertion, learned Family Court relied upon the discussion made in answer to issue no.(iii) and also took note of the Complaint Case No.638 of 2010 filed by the respondent under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner-husband making allegations of demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs from her father for starting a business and torture on non fulfillment thereof. It was held accordingly, that desertion was not proved on fact from the date i.e. 07.05.2008 as alleged by the petitioner and moreover, there was a criminal case lodged by the respondent on allegations of cruelty in marriage against the petitioner. As such, petitioner could not take advantage of the own wrong, if he had created circumstances that compelled the respondent to leave her matrimonial home. This issue was also decided against the petitioner. As such, petitioner could not take advantage of the own wrong, if he had created circumstances that compelled the respondent to leave her matrimonial home. This issue was also decided against the petitioner. Issue no.(i), (ii) and (v) were all decided against the petitioner on the basis of findings recorded in respect of issue no.(iii) and (iv) and it was held that he had no valid cause of action to seek divorce. On the basis of these materials on record and the evidence adduced by the parties, learned counsel for the appellant-husband has laboured hard to substantiate the grounds of cruelty and desertion for grant of divorce. He submits that the parties are living separately since 2008 and there is a daughter born out of the wedlock who is about 12-13 years old and there no love and affection remaining between the parties to continue with namesake relationship. As such, it would be in the interest of both the parties that the marriage be dissolved. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the different instances of cruelty as has also been raised before the learned Family Court and taken note herein-above in support of his submissions. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has strongly opposed the grounds urged in appeal for seeking decree of divorce. It is submitted that cruelty as a ground for divorce has been explained in various judgment of the Apex Court such as in the case of Savitri Pandey versus Prem Chandra Pandey [ (2002) 2 SCC 73 ] and other decisions rendered thereafter. Cruelty should be such which endangers the life of the other spouse and makes it impossible to continue peaceful conjugal life. Cruelty has not been defined in clear terms but it postulates treatment of the other spouse with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it may be harmful for the petitioner to live with the other party. None of the instances cited by the petitioner-husband were established on the basis of any evidence worth its name during the proceedings of the suit before the Family Court. These instances also were not sufficient, even assumingly, to substantiate the charge of cruelty against the respondent-wife. None of the instances cited by the petitioner-husband were established on the basis of any evidence worth its name during the proceedings of the suit before the Family Court. These instances also were not sufficient, even assumingly, to substantiate the charge of cruelty against the respondent-wife. In fact, respondent had suffered on grounds of cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and had been compelled to institute a criminal case being C.P. Case No.638 of 2010 which is still pending before the Court of learned C.J.M., Bokaro. As such, it was the respondent, who was the victim of cruelty and had a reasonable cause to stay away from the matrimonial home. There is no animus diserendi on the part of the respondent to substantiate the charge of desertion as physical desertion, if any, on the part of the respondent, was only due to the conduct of the petitioner. He therefore, cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Therefore, none of the grounds urged have any merit. Therefore, the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the materials on record including the relevant evidence of the parties cited by learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in support. We have also discussed the findings of the learned Family Court on both substantial issues of cruelty and desertion. Upon consideration of the rival case of the parties and the discussion made herein-above, we are of the view that on none of the instances cited by the appellant, charge of cruelty were made out for seeking a decree of divorce. As a matter of fact, all the six counts on the charge of cruelty were in itself not only unsubstantiated, and taken together also, did not constitute any such act of cruelty by the respondent against the petitioner for seeking a decree and divorce. On the contrary respondent having suffered cruelty in marriage had instituted a Complaint Case bearing no. 638 of 2010 under Section 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is still pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro. As such, the grounds of desertion are also not made out since respondent had a reasonable cause to stay away from the matrimonial home on allegation of cruelty and torture inflicted upon her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. As such, the grounds of desertion are also not made out since respondent had a reasonable cause to stay away from the matrimonial home on allegation of cruelty and torture inflicted upon her due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The findings of learned Family Court are well considered and do not suffer from mis-appreciation of evidence or perversity which deserve interference in appeal. Appellant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong if no recognized grounds of divorce, as enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is made out on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced on his behalf. As such, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Decree accordingly. Needless to say, any observation or findings made by the learned Family Court or this Court in the present appeal, would not cause any prejudice to the case of the parties in the complaint case pending for adjudication before the competent Court.