Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1690 (MAD)

M. Senthil Kumar v. Devasena

2020-09-25

C.SARAVANAN, R.SUBBIAH

body2020
JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals respectively filed under Section 19 of The Family Courts Act, against the common order and Decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in O.P.No.4323 of 2011 and O.P.No.1763 of 2014 on the file of VII Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.) Both these appeals are taken up for hearing through Video-conferencing. 2. The appellant/husband has come up with these respective Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, aggrieved by the common order and Decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in O.P.Nos.4323 of 2011 and 1763 of 2014 respectively. By the said Judgment dated 20.09.2019, the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.4323 of 2011 filed by the appellant/husband, while allowing OP No. 1763 of 2014 filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The appellant-husband has filed OP No. 4323 of 2011 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of The Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent-wife. The averments in OP No. 4323 of 2011 are elucidated hereunder in brief. 4.(i) According to the appellant-husband, at the time of marriage, he was working as a Senior Manager in Ashok Leyland, Chennai, while the respondent-wife was working in Vmoksha Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore. Before marriage, it was agreed that the respondent-wife shall quit her employment at Bangalore and shift to Chennai where she can seek for an employment. It was further stated that the marriage of the appellant-husband with the respondent-wife was solemnised on 07.09.2009 at Sangamam Thirumana Mandapam, Vellore as per Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after the marriage, the couple stayed in the house of the appellant-husband for two days and they left Chennai to Bangalore on 09.09.2009, on which date, a marriage reception was arranged at Hotel Woodlands, Bangalore. It was stated by the appellant-husband that even during the marriage reception, the respondent-wife was totally non co-operative and recalcitrant in her attitude. Further, during the honey-moon trip, the respondent-wife quarrelled with the appellant-husband in public and made the entire trip an unpleasant. The respondent-wife also demanded the appellant-husband to shift his employment to Bangalore, inasmuch as she is not interested to come to Chennai. Such a demand made by the respondent-wife, contrary to her agreement before marriage, had resulted in a matrimonial rift between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife also demanded the appellant-husband to shift his employment to Bangalore, inasmuch as she is not interested to come to Chennai. Such a demand made by the respondent-wife, contrary to her agreement before marriage, had resulted in a matrimonial rift between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. It was also stated that the respondent-wife had openly expressed that she is not interested to lead a matrimonial life with the appellant-husband and started abusing the appellant-husband in filthy language. The respondent-wife also insulted the appellant-husband and his family members often and in one such occasion, she uttered that “TAMIL” (“Nee Oru Velangatha Appanukku Porandha Velangatha Payyan” (you are an useless person born to an useless father). However, the appellant-husband did not disclose these humiliations he suffered at the hands of the respondent-wife to any one and waited patiently for her reformation. According to the appellant-husband, he had taken a house for rent at No.60, Pondicherry Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai and during the second week of May 2010, the respondent-wife, after much persuasion, joined him in the said house. However, during her stay, she very often quarreled with the appellant-husband for no reason and caused him mental disturbance. (ii) The appellant-husband further stated that he took the respondent-wife to Delhi, where he was to attend an Auto Expo as part of his employment. During their stay at Delhi, the respondent-wife refused to travel in a Metro Train. In that context, the respondent-wife called the appellant-husband a “miser” and demanded him to engage a taxi. During their stay at Delhi, the appellant-husband hired a room which was arranged by the brother of the respondent-wife. However, the respondent-wife quarreled with the appellant-husband by stating that the room is not good and therefore, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were shifted to another room. The appellant-husband also had taken the respondent-wife to Taj Mahal where the respondent-wife did not cooperate even for taking photographs. On their return from Agra, the respondent-wife had uttered towards the appellant-husband that “persons like you has no right to visit Taj Mahal and it was an insult to the great monument. During yet another conversation, the respondent-wife retorted by stating “you are a zero in look (not handsome) and zero in money (not rich)”. Such statements made by the respondent-wife had hurt the appellant-husband. During yet another conversation, the respondent-wife retorted by stating “you are a zero in look (not handsome) and zero in money (not rich)”. Such statements made by the respondent-wife had hurt the appellant-husband. Above all, when the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were returning to Chennai from Delhi by flight, the respondent-wife called the appellant-husband a “lustful freak” in the peak of her voice which had put the appellant-husband into shame and degradation. According to the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife is rich multi-fold than him and that is also one of the reasons why she did not respect the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife used to harass the appellant-husband by abusing his parents so that he will get infuriated. The respondent-wife also avoided being pregnant by stating that her priority is good employment and not kids. Further, the respondent-wife has to be treated for polycystic ovary and only after treatment to such ailment, there is a chance of getting pregnant. In fact, the appellant-husband wanted the respondent-wife to co-operate for such treatment, but she refused. (iii) According to the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife wanted to lead a way-ward life. She did not discharge her duties as a normal Hindu wife. The appellant-husband also purchased a flat at Adambakkam, Chennai, but the respondent-wife refused to even come to look at the flat purportedly on the reasoning that the father of the respondent-wife, a retired Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, has stated that the flat is not good or it is not as per “Vasthu Sastra. On 30.06.2010, the respondent-wife came to Chennai from Vellore and engaged in a quarrel with the appellant-husband by demanding to know as to why he has not washed his clothes and vessels. During such quarrel, at about 7.30 pm, the respondent-wife physically assaulted the appellant-husband. When the appellant-husband attempted to exit the house, the respondent-wife pulled his hair and prevented him from leaving the house, which has caused severe damage to his scalp. Fearing for his life, the appellant-husband stayed in a lodge on that night and on the next day, when he came to his house, he found the house locked. On enquiry, the appellant-husband came to know that the respondent-wife had left Chennai to Vellore and was staying with her parents. When the appellant-husband informed the father of the respondent-wife about the misdeeds of the respondent-wife, he choose not to listen. On enquiry, the appellant-husband came to know that the respondent-wife had left Chennai to Vellore and was staying with her parents. When the appellant-husband informed the father of the respondent-wife about the misdeeds of the respondent-wife, he choose not to listen. On the other hand, he advised the appellant-husband to adjust with his daughter, the respondent-wife. There were several meetings that had taken place to pacify the respondent-wife both by the elders of the family members and in the office of the advocate of the appellant-husband, but the respondent-wife only insulted the appellant-husband in front of his well wishers. The respondent-wife had humiliated, insulted and harassed the appellant-husband in all forms and manifestations and thereby subjected him to cruel treatment. The respondent-wife also categorically asserted that she is no longer interested to live with the appellant-husband and she is only interested to live with her parents. As the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were residing separately for more than 18 months, the matrimonial life between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife had broken irretrievably beyond repair and there is no chance for re-union. In such circumstances, the appellant-husband thought it fit to file the petition for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between him and the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty. 5.(i) Opposing the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made therein. It was stated that the marriage was performed by her father by spending a sum of Rs.15 lakhs apart from the expenses towards purchase of jewellery, costumes and “Sridhana” properties. It is her contention that at the time of marriage, the parents of the appellant/husband were residing in Bangalore. Hence, after her marriage, she started living with the parents of the appellant-husband at Bangalore, as requested by the appellant-husband. Further, the respondent-wife was always willing to resign her job and join the appellant-husband at Chennai, however, the father of the appellant (father-in-law) was not willing to allow her to go over to Chennai to join with the appellant-husband, as he was getting his son’s income for the maintenance of his family at Bangalore and also to meet out the medical expenses of her mother-in-law. While so, it is an utter falsehood to state that the respondent-wife was not willing to resign her job and join the appellant-husband at Chennai. While so, it is an utter falsehood to state that the respondent-wife was not willing to resign her job and join the appellant-husband at Chennai. On the other hand, the appellant-husband has been leading a wayward life and had no intention to take the respondent-wife to Chennai to lead a happy marital life. Due to such an attitude of the appellant-husband, even after marriage, the respondent-wife was made to and confined to live with her parents-in-law without her husband, the appellant-husband. During such stay, the respondent-wife was subjected to cruel treatment by her father-in-law and brother-in-law and she tolerated all those misdeeds with the hope of joining the appellant-husband. On the contrary, the appellant-husband has been pressing upon the respondent-wife to run the family at Bangalore along with his parents by spending her entire earnings. (ii) According to the respondent-wife, she had taken several steps to leave Bangalore and join the appellant-husband in Chennai. Ultimately, after repeated demands, the appellant-husband had taken a house for rent at Chennai during February 2010, however, the appellant-husband was in no mood to spend for the reasonable expenses to be incurred by the respondent-wife for maintenance of the family. Whenever this was questioned, the appellant-husband used to pick up quarrels with the respondent-wife for trivial reasons. The appellant-husband also indulged in a character assassination towards her father by calling him a “cheat.” According to the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband repeatedly harped upon by saying that her father did not spend any money for purchasing household articles. The appellant-husband, even went to the extent of demanding the respondent-wife to bring money from her father for monthly maintenance, including grocery. The appellant-husband also uttered that the marriage was not celebrated in a grandeur by the parents of the respondent-wife and also yelled at the photographer during the marriage ceremonies. The appellant-husband was also reluctant to spend any amount for purchasing a television. The appellant-husband also openly uttered that he was not satisfied with the manner in which the marriage was solemnised, besides, the dowry offered is far from satisfactory. By pointing out the above, the appellant-husband also threatened the respondent-wife by saying that he is preparing for a second marriage with a girl who can afford to fulfill his lustful desires. (iii) The respondent-wife specifically denied the averment that she is not willing to bear a child. By pointing out the above, the appellant-husband also threatened the respondent-wife by saying that he is preparing for a second marriage with a girl who can afford to fulfill his lustful desires. (iii) The respondent-wife specifically denied the averment that she is not willing to bear a child. The respondent-wife indeed intended to become pregnant, but it was the appellant-husband who did not fulfill her wishes. The appellant-husband has uttered that he was not impressed with her eyes and did not have an inclination to live with her, as she looked below average in complexion. On hearing it from the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife advised the appellant-husband to take some treatment from Psychologist/Doctors. This was informed by the appellant-husband to his father and his father instructed the appellant-husband to drive the respondent-wife out of the house. The appellant-husband always disregarded this respondent-wife and disgraced the privacy of the marital life. The appellant-husband also assaulted the respondent-wife and caused her bodily injury. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent-wife has patiently endured all such onslaughts and excused the appellant-husband for his brutal assaults. (iv) The respondent-wife vehemently denied that she never uttered towards the appellant-husband that “he was an useless person born to an useless father”. On the other hand, it was the appellant-husband who has been expressing his frustration about the marriage and other ceremonies performed from the date of marriage and had been insulting the respondent-wife in every possible way. During the trip to Delhi, the appellant-husband had taken a lodge for rent at a cheaper rate, where there was no hot water. As the weather was so cold and chill, the respondent-wife demanded some other room, where there is provision for hot water. Even though the employer of the appellant-husband would reimburse the cost of the room rent, the appellant-husband had taken a room at a cheapest rent. Even otherwise, the appellant-husband had forcibly received Rs.20,000/- from the respondent-wife at the end of the journey by pretending as if he doesn’t have any money. Therefore, it is not as if the respondent-wife had created chaos during their stay at Delhi by citing the poor condition of the room. The respondent-wife also denied the averment that she did not co-operate for photographs during the trip to Agra. (v) It was further stated that the respondent-wife has not deserted the appellant-husband willfully. Therefore, it is not as if the respondent-wife had created chaos during their stay at Delhi by citing the poor condition of the room. The respondent-wife also denied the averment that she did not co-operate for photographs during the trip to Agra. (v) It was further stated that the respondent-wife has not deserted the appellant-husband willfully. Rather, on 30.06.2010, during a quarrel, the appellant-husband had assaulted and strangled her. Realising his folly, the appellant-husband had run out of the house on the apprehension that the respondent-wife would complain it to the police. Throughout the whole night, the appellant-husband did not return home. Unfortunately, at that time, the respondent-wife received a phone call about the death of her grandmother. The respondent-wife therefore made several phone calls to the appellant-husband to intimate it, but he did not attend the calls. In such circumstances, the appellant-husband left to Vellore. Thereafter, the appellant-husband never cared to invite the respondent-wife to the matrimonial home. On the other hand, the respondent-wife repeatedly asked the appellant-husband to permit her to join him at Chennai. Even after receipt of the notice sent by the appellant-husband for dissolution of the marriage, the respondent-wife had taken several steps to join his matrimonial company. The father of the respondent-wife also arranged mediations through the elders in the family, but the appellant-husband had exhibited his utmost disinterest in taking back the respondent-wife to the matrimonial home. According to the respondent-wife, she is always ready and willing to join the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband and she had also taken steps in that direction. Therefore, the respondent-wife prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition. 6. Notwithstanding the averments made in the counter affidavit, the respondent-wife has filed a Petition being O.P. No. 1763 of 2014 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the respondent-wife, from the beginning of the marriage life, she discharged her matrimonial obligations and served her mother-in-law, as she was sick. The respondent-wife made several attempts to join the appellant-husband at Chennai but he postponed it for one reason or the other. The respondent-wife also resigned her job from Vmoksha Technologies, Bangalore with an intention to join the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife made several attempts to join the appellant-husband at Chennai but he postponed it for one reason or the other. The respondent-wife also resigned her job from Vmoksha Technologies, Bangalore with an intention to join the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband. However, the appellant-husband had asserted that to take a house for rent at Chennai, will be very expensive and therefore, he is not interested to take up a separate house for their stay at Chennai. By saying so, the appellant-husband made the respondent-wife to stay at Bangalore along with her parents-in-law, where she was subjected to extreme hardships by her father-in-law and brother-in-law. Ultimately, after several obstacles, the respondent-wife joined the appellant-husband in a rented house at Kotturpuram. Even during such stay, the respondent-wife was subjected to several acts of domestic violence and she suffered physical injury and mental disturbance. The appellant-husband openly uttered to the respondent-wife that he is not satisfied with the manner in which the marriage was performed by her father, including the quantum of dowry. In the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent-wife also listed out the articles which are in the custody of the appellant-husband. It was also stated that several mediations have taken place but of no avail. The respondent-wife is always ready and waiting to lead a happy matrimonial life with the appellant-husband. However, the appellant-husband, without any reasonable cause, had withdrawn from the society of the respondent-wife. Similarly, the appellant-husband owe a matrimonial obligations to give best care and protection to the respondent, as his wife. Therefore, the respondent-wife has filed the Original Petition for a direction to the appellant-husband to restitute the conjugal rights with her. 7. The appellant-husband has filed a Counter Statement in OP No. 1763 of 2014 contending inter alia that the respondent-wife did not discharge her matrimonial obligations as a dutiful Hindu wife. She often abused and harassed the appellant-husband by referring him as a miser and complained him of being poor, in front of his friends and relatives. The respondent-wife also did not want to co-habit with the appellant-husband. She picked up quarrel for no reason. The appellant-husband has been supportive of the respondent-wife throughout the matrimonial life and she cannot accuse the appellant-husband as if he had spoiled her career and coerced her to quit her job. The respondent-wife also did not want to co-habit with the appellant-husband. She picked up quarrel for no reason. The appellant-husband has been supportive of the respondent-wife throughout the matrimonial life and she cannot accuse the appellant-husband as if he had spoiled her career and coerced her to quit her job. The appellant-husband had taken a house for rent at Kotturpuram, Chennai, however, she refused to come and live with him there for no reason. The appellant-husband reiterated that during a quarrel, the respondent-wife had pulled his hair and caused damage to his scalp. The appellant-husband also reiterated that he left the house on the night of 30.06.2010 fearing for his own safety and stayed in a nearby lodge throughout the night. The appellant-husband did not threaten or assault the respondent-wife at any point of time. The respondent-wife has no intention to stay with the appellant-husband and she always want to flaunt her wealth and richness and thereby insulted and defamed the appellant-husband in front of his friends and relatives. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed to prolong the decision in the Original Petition filed by him for dissolution of marriage. The matrimonial life between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife had become dead-wood and no useful purpose would be served by directing the appellant-husband to join the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-wife. 8. Before the Family Court, common evidence was let in, in both the Original Petitions. The appellant-husband examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-16. The respondent-wife, apart from examining herself as RW1, has examined her uncle Mr.M.Manohar Lohia as RW2, but did not mark any documentary evidence. The Family Court, on analysing the oral and documentary evidence, as also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, has concluded that the appellant-husband failed to prove the averments he had made in the Original Petition filed for dissolution of marriage. In other words, it was concluded by the Family Court that the averments raised by the appellant-husband in the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage do not constitute cruelty warranting a decree of divorce to be granted. It was concluded that the dispute or misunderstanding between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife are normal wear and tear, which could be witnessed in almost all the matrimonial home. It was concluded that the dispute or misunderstanding between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife are normal wear and tear, which could be witnessed in almost all the matrimonial home. Therefore, while dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, the Family Court allowed the Original Petition filed by the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband contended that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was arranged by elders of both sides. After marriage, the appellant-husband, to his dismay, has found the behaviour pattern of the respondent-wife most arrogant and unyielding to his family. Even during the marriage reception photo-shoot, the respondent-wife refused to talk with him and behaved abnormally, which was witnessed by all the guests. After marriage, the respondent-wife cultivated ill-will towards the appellant-husband for reasons unknown and did not discharge her normal duties. The respondent-wife also did not respect the appellant-husband and his parents and had periodically hurled abuses towards him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-husband, while returning from honey-moon, the respondent-wife started acting inimically towards his brother, because he had opened few gifts received during the marriage. Even though the brother of the appellant-husband apologised, she relentlessly refused to accept it and picked up a quarrel. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband further submitted that the respondent-wife, after marriage, stayed with the parents of the appellant-husband at Bangalore and continued her employment. The parents of the appellant-husband treated her well, which is evident from the deposition of the respondent-wife herself to the effect that after work, the father in law of the appellant-husband picked her up on a daily basis. Before marriage, it was agreed that the appellant-husband would get her employment transferred, but after marriage, the respondent-wife insisted the appellant-husband to seek transfer of his employment to Bangalore and expressed her dislike to come down to Chennai. In fact, the appellant-husband had booked a flat at Adambakkam, where the respondent-wife refused to come and reside. This was also admitted by the respondent-wife in her cross-examination. Therefore, the appellant-husband was constrained to take a house for rent at Kotturpuram during February 2010 on a monthly rent of Rs.11,500/- to appease the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife reluctantly and unintentionally came to Chennai and resided with the appellant-husband at Kotturpuram only during second week of May 2010. This was also admitted by the respondent-wife in her cross-examination. Therefore, the appellant-husband was constrained to take a house for rent at Kotturpuram during February 2010 on a monthly rent of Rs.11,500/- to appease the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife reluctantly and unintentionally came to Chennai and resided with the appellant-husband at Kotturpuram only during second week of May 2010. Even during such stay, the respondent-wife exhibited utter non-cooperation and intended to lead a materialistic life with all comfort. The respondent-wife demanded the appellant-husband to purchase a car. The respondent-wife also fought with the maid servant and she stopped coming to their house. However, the respondent-wife refused to do the household chores such as washing and sweeping. With the result, the appellant-husband frequently bought dinner from restaurants. Even though the appellant-husband purchased several items and made the stay of the respondent-wife comfortable, befitting his status, she was not satisfied with the purchase of those items. The respondent-wife was also reluctant to mingle with the appellant-husband or travel with him. During their visit to Delhi, the appellant-husband was scheduled to stay in a room provided by his company in Central Delhi, but the respondent-wife’s brother recommended a hotel called “Hilltop Palace” where the accommodation was booked. However, by citing lack of amenities, the respondent-wife quarreled with the appellant-husband. Therefore, the appellant-husband had made arrangements for their stay in another hotel for the convenience and comfort of the respondent-wife. When the appellant-husband planned to go to Auto Expo, the respondent-wife insisted for booking a taxi, rather to go by metro train and quarrelled with the appellant-husband. Even during their visit to Taj Mahal, the respondent-wife yelled towards the appellant-husband that “a person like you have no right to visit Taj Mahal” and the appellant-husband was “zero in looks and zero in money”. Further, on board the flight to Chennai, the respondent-wife called the appellant-husband a “lustful freak”, whereby he was put to shame and degradation in front of the other passengers. These accusations made by the respondent-wife had caused untold mental agony and disturbance and they are nothing short of cruel treatment towards the appellant-husband. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband also contended that the respondent-wife prioritised her life towards good employment and not children or family. The respondent-wife also is suffering from Poly-cystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) due to which, the chances of her becoming pregnant are remote. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband also contended that the respondent-wife prioritised her life towards good employment and not children or family. The respondent-wife also is suffering from Poly-cystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) due to which, the chances of her becoming pregnant are remote. However, the respondent-wife refused to take treatment inspite of the request made by the appellant-husband. This is also evident from the admission of the respondent-wife in her cross-examination, coupled with Ex.P8, medical prescription. Further, even during the short period of stay, the respondent-wife has evinced no interest in having a child by stating that she did not want a child that would look like the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife also blamed the appellant-husband for not getting a job for her at Chennai. The respondent-wife also scolded the appellant-husband frequently by referring him as a miser and who did not provide her enough comfort during her stay at Chennai. During the quarrel on 30.06.2010, due to the violent behaviour of the respondent-wife coupled with the fact that she threatened the appellant-husband to complain to the police, he was made to flee away from the house fearing for his safety and had taken refuge in a hotel during the entire night. This was also admitted by the respondent-wife in her cross-examination. Thus, the respondent-wife repeatedly hurt the appellant-husband in all forms and manifestations thereby he was treated cruelly. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband proceeded to contend that on 30.06.2010, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and thereafter, she did not return to the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant-husband, after causing a notice to the respondent-wife, has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of the marriage. After three years of filing the Original Petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent-wife has filed the Original Petition under Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent-wife has also filed I.A. No. 3067 of 2012 for grant of Interim Maintenance and litigation expenses suppressing the fact that she is also employed. Further, the respondent-wife filed I.A.No.21 of 2016 for enhancement of maintenance by claiming a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month. The fact remains that the respondent-wife is employed as Executive-HR in M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions and earning Rs.60,000/-, which is evident from Exs.P-14 and P-16. Further, the respondent-wife filed I.A.No.21 of 2016 for enhancement of maintenance by claiming a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month. The fact remains that the respondent-wife is employed as Executive-HR in M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions and earning Rs.60,000/-, which is evident from Exs.P-14 and P-16. Thus, the respondent-wife has filed the applications seeking interim maintenance by suppressing the material facts. The filing of these applications speaks volume about the conduct of the respondent-wife to harass the appellant-husband. Even in the reply notice under Ex.P11, the respondent-wife indirectly expressed her disinclination to live with the appellant-husband, which was not properly appreciated by the court below. Above all, the appellant-husband, through his deposition as PW1, has established that the dispute between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife is not a trivial one or a normal wear and tear which occur in every household. The appellant-husband was made to suffer immensely by the respondent-wife through her conduct. The respondent-wife procrastinated the child birth and caused untold mental agony to the appellant-husband. She also did not co-operate for medical treatment. The respondent-wife exhibited a disrespectful attitude towards the appellant-husband by insulting him in front of his friends and well-wishers. Therefore, it is contended that the appellant-husband has proved the averments he made in the Original Petition to drive home the point that he was treated cruelly by the respondent-wife and consequently, he is entitled for a decree of divorce. 13. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court and they are:- (i) Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi, reported in 1988 (1) SCC 105 , to contend that proof of cruel attitude by the other spouse depends from case to case and a straight-jacket formula cannot be adopted to prove cruelty. There may be instance of cruelty by unintentional, but inexcusable conduct of any part and it may also result by cultural conflict of spouses. If the intention of one of the parties to the litigation is to cause harm, harass or hurt the other and it could be inferred by the nature of the conduct, then it can be held that the other spouse was subjected to cruelty. (ii) Praveen Mehta Vs. If the intention of one of the parties to the litigation is to cause harm, harass or hurt the other and it could be inferred by the nature of the conduct, then it can be held that the other spouse was subjected to cruelty. (ii) Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta, reported in 2002 (5) SCC 706 was relied upon to contend that mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to behaviour or behavioural pattern. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to be established by direct evidence and it has to be inferred 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 be assessed with the attending facts to draw such inference, cumulatively. (iii) In A.Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 22 , it was held by the Supreme Court that, for constituting cruelty, the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that the appellant-husband cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent-wife. (iv) In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, reported in 2007 (4) SCC 511 , it was held that unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child, may amount to cruelty to the other. Further, a long and continued separation would result in repair of matrimonial bond, cause friction and it would also lead to cruelty. 14. By placing reliance on the above decision, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. A consistent conduct of a spouse to inflict immeasurable mental agony and torture, may well define cruelty and it can be inferred from the entire facts and circumstance of the case. Even insignificant or trifling conduct may cause pain in the mind of the other spouse and such conduct can also be called cruelty. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-husband, if the above parameters are taken into account, the conduct of the respondent-wife falls within the scope and ambit of “cruelty” and it was also established by the appellant-husband by oral and documentary evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-husband, if the above parameters are taken into account, the conduct of the respondent-wife falls within the scope and ambit of “cruelty” and it was also established by the appellant-husband by oral and documentary evidence. Above all, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband contended that for the past ten years, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are residing separately and there is little or no scope for their re-union at this stage. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband prayed for allowing the appeals by setting aside the orders passed by the Family Court, Chennai. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that, after marriage, the respondent, a newly wedded young wife, could not join her husband (appellant). Rather, at the request of the appellant-husband, she stayed with the parents-in-law and served them with love and care. During the weekends, the respondent-wife visited Chennai to see the appellant-husband. At that time, the appellant-husband expressed his intention to purchase a flat, as, he was staying in a bachelor’s accommodation till January 2010. The respondent-wife therefore contributed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents to enable the appellant-husband to purchase a flat, but inspite of the same, the appellant-husband demanded more from the respondent-wife. In fact, the respondent-wife expected that if a flat is purchased, she can commence her matrimonial journey along with the appellant-husband at Chennai and therefore, the father of the respondent-wife also arranged for funds. This itself proves that the respondent-wife, at all times after the marriage, expected to join the appellant-husband at Chennai. This would belie the averments made by the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife asked him to shift his employment at Bangalore and the respondent-wife is not interested to come down to Chennai. Thus, the averments made in the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage are far from truth. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife also invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of the respondent-wife to the effect that she had in fact taken treatment for Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) at Apollo Hospital, Chennai but due to lack of financial support from the appellant-husband, she continued such treatment in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, with the support of her parents. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the respondent-wife never intended to take treatment to beget a child and thereby treated the appellant-husband cruelly. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife, further contended that the incidents portrayed by the appellant-husband as if the respondent-wife quarrelled with the appellant-husband by citing lack of amenities in the hotel at Delhi, had been explained by her in the counter statement filed before the Family Court. The respondent-wife only requested the appellant-husband to shift to some other room by citing lack of hot water especially in the chill weather that prevailed at that time. The appellant-husband has only exaggerated this incident to suit his convenience. Similarly, the respondent-wife has categorically denied having abused the appellant-husband with filthy languages, as described in the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife respected the appellant-husband and his family members and there was no occasion for her to scold or abuse the appellant-husband in front of his friends or relatives, as alleged. 18. With respect to the incident that had taken place on 30.06.2010, it was the appellant-husband who had physically assaulted the respondent-wife and therefore, she expressed her intention to lodge a complaint before the Police authorities. Immediately, the appellant-husband fled away from the house and he did not return. At that time, the respondent-wife received an intimation regarding the death of her grandmother, and therefore, she was constrained to leave from Chennai to Vellore. Thereafter, the appellant-husband, taking advantage of such a situation, conveniently, did not invite the respondent-wife to join his matrimonial company by complaining as if the respondent-wife, without any intimation, deserted his matrimonial company. The fact remains that the respondent-wife made innumerable calls to the appellant-husband to intimate the death of her grandmother and her intention to leave from Chennai to Vellore, but the appellant-husband did not respond to the calls. This was also admitted by the appellant-husband, as PW1, in his cross-examination on 21.02.2019 before the Family Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the desertion of the respondent-wife is intentional to part away from the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband. Thereafter, many mediations have taken place, but the appellant-husband refused to participate in the meetings and had abandoned himself and thereby indirectly refused to take back the respondent-wife in the matrimonial home. Therefore, it cannot be said that the desertion of the respondent-wife is intentional to part away from the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband. Thereafter, many mediations have taken place, but the appellant-husband refused to participate in the meetings and had abandoned himself and thereby indirectly refused to take back the respondent-wife in the matrimonial home. At this stage, the appellant-husband had sent a notice calling upon the respondent-wife to give her consent for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. Immediately thereof, the respondent-wife along with her parents, her uncle Mr.U.M.Kannan and aunt Mrs.Komala had a meeting at the house of one Mr.Vineeth Kumar to patch up the differences between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife, but nothing materialised. Thereafter, the respondent-wife had issued a reply notice with delay. The fact that the relatives of the respondent-wife made attempts to patch up the differences, had also been admitted by the appellant-husband in his cross-examination before the Family Court on 28.02.2019. In such circumstances, the appellant-husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong and contend that the respondent-wife refused to join his matrimonial company. In fact, before and after filing the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage, all the attempts made by the respondent-wife for a re-union had been thwarted by the appellant-husband. It is in those circumstances, during the pendency of the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage, the respondent-wife was constrained to file the petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the Original Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent-wife filed an application for interim maintenance, claiming maintenance only for the actual period of her unemployment and the trial Court, on a perusal of the documentary evidence filed in support thereof, granted interim maintenance only for the actual period of non-employment. The order passed by the Family Court awarding interim maintenance was also confirmed by this Court in C.M.A. No. 2323 of 2018 filed by the appellant-husband. While so, it cannot be said that the respondent-wife, by suppressing her employment status, has falsely claimed interim maintenance before the Family Court with an intention to harass the appellant-husband. 19. The order passed by the Family Court awarding interim maintenance was also confirmed by this Court in C.M.A. No. 2323 of 2018 filed by the appellant-husband. While so, it cannot be said that the respondent-wife, by suppressing her employment status, has falsely claimed interim maintenance before the Family Court with an intention to harass the appellant-husband. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife further submitted that the Family Court has analysed the evidence adduced by the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife in-extenso and came to a right conclusion that the appellant-husband has not proved the averments he made in the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court has further held that the dispute or differences between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are trivial and they are common in every household. The Family Court therefore held that the averments made in the Original Petition cannot be regarded as the one to show that the appellant-husband was subjected to cruelty by the respondent-wife, by her conduct. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that the Family Court is right in dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband for divorce and in allowing the Original Petition of the respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife, by inviting our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shoba Rani case (cited supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband, contended that, in that case, the wife had initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant-husband under The Dowry Prohibition Act with false averments and considering the same, the Supreme Court held that such a proceeding has been motivated at the instance of the respondent-wife. In the present case, there is no proof to show that the respondent-wife had maliciously prosecuted the appellant-husband by filing false or frivolous complaint. While so, the decision in Shoba Rani case has no application to this case. 21. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, by pointing out the decision of the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh case (cited supra) relied on by the counsel for the appellant-husband, submitted that, in that case, the husband had undergone a bye-pass surgery and at that time, the wife did not render any support to him. 21. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, by pointing out the decision of the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh case (cited supra) relied on by the counsel for the appellant-husband, submitted that, in that case, the husband had undergone a bye-pass surgery and at that time, the wife did not render any support to him. Further, in that case, it was substantiated that the wife refused to have sexual intercourse with the husband and thereby subjected him to cruelty. In this case, there is no such allegation made by the appellant-husband and therefore, the facts involved in that case are factually distinguishable. 22. Further, in Parveen Mehta case (cited supra) relied on by the counsel for the appellant-husband, the wife refused to undergo medical test and treatment and also refused to disclose the nature of illness and the treatment she undergoes without the knowledge of the husband. In that circumstances, it was held that the wife had subjected the husband to matrimonial cruelty. In the present case, the respondent-wife has clearly deposed that she had taken treatment in Apollo Hospital, Chennai, however, due to lack of financial support by the appellant-husband, she continued such treatment for Poly-cystic Ovary Syndrome in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that the aforesaid decision relied on by the counsel for the appellant-husband has no application to the facts of this case. 23. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Usha Devi vs. G. Dayalanathan reported in MANU/TN/4264/2017, wherein it was held that instances of cruelty has to be substantiated by the person who makes it and it cannot be relied on by considering certain isolated instances. 24. Reference was also made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kannusamy vs. T.Sumathi reported in 2017 (2) Law Weekly 673, wherein, it was held that allegations of cruelty must be firmly established in matrimonial cases by the spouse who advances it and in the absence of any evidence to substantiate it, the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty, must be refused. 25. 25. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife, by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, contended that the Family Court, on an analysis of the evidence made available, has come to a right conclusion over which interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 26. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-husband as well as the respondent-wife and perused the entire records, including the order of the Family Court, which is impugned in these appeals. 27. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was arranged by the elders of both sides and it was solemnised on 07.09.2009. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of marriage, the appellant-husband was employed in Chennai, while the respondent-wife was in employment in a Company at Bangalore. 28. According to the appellant-husband, before marriage, it was agreed that after marriage, the respondent-wife shall quit her employment in Bangalore and shall commence the matrimonial journey with the appellant-husband at Chennai. However, contrary to such an expressed understanding, she refused to quit her job, rather, demanded the appellant-husband to come to Bangalore by shifting his employment. According to the appellant-husband, such a demand made by the respondent-wife was refused by him as not feasible and this was stated to be the starting point for the differences that had cropped up between them. However, this allegation of the appellant-husband was refuted by the respondent-wife by stating that after marriage, the appellant-husband was staying in a Bachelor’s accommodation at Chennai and he has no permanent residence. Therefore, as requested by the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife was staying in Bangalore along with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and had taken care of them well. It was also stated that the father-in-law used to drop and pick up the respondent-wife from her employment on daily basis. This was the deposition of RW1 (respondent-wife) during her examination before the Family Court and it was also admitted by the appellant-husband. Further, according to the respondent-wife, soon after the marriage, she was made to spend her entire salary for maintenance of the family consisting of herself and the in-laws at Bangalore, however, she has no qualm or quarrel over the same. Further, according to the respondent-wife, soon after the marriage, she was made to spend her entire salary for maintenance of the family consisting of herself and the in-laws at Bangalore, however, she has no qualm or quarrel over the same. At the same time, according to the respondent-wife, it was she, who demanded the appellant-husband to take a house for rent at Chennai so as to enable her to join him in the matrimonial journey. While so, the averment made by the appellant-husband in Para No.5 of the Original Petition filed by him for dissolution of marriage, as though the respondent-wife refused to quit her employment at Bangalore and instead, demanded the appellant-husband to get his employment transferred to Chennai, as she was not interested to come to Chennai, is proved to be false. 29. In Para No.7 of the Original Petition filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage, he has made reference to the fact that during February 2010, he had taken a house for rent at Kotturpuram and the respondent-wife also came down to Chennai during May 2010 by quitting her employment and stayed there. Therefore also, it is evident that the respondent-wife did not refuse to join the appellant-husband at Chennai. Rather, the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife lived together at Chennai for a brief period. 30. The sum and substance of the grievance projected by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife to drive home the point that he was subjected to cruelty at the instance of the respondent-wife are mani-fold. It was stated that the respondent-wife exhibited intolerable behaviour, indulged in a quarrel with him often and shouted at him by using filthy language in front of his friends and well wishers. During one such quarrel, the respondent-wife uttered that “he was an useless person born to an useless father”. The respondent-wife was interested only to have a materialistic life with all comfort. Even though the appellant-husband purchased several items and made the stay of the respondent-wife comfortable, befitting his status, she was not satisfied with the purchase of those items. The respondent-wife demanded the appellant-husband to purchase a car and she preferred only to go by car, whenever they want to go out. The respondent-wife also fought with the maid servant unnecessarily with the result, she stopped coming to their house for attending domestic chores. The respondent-wife demanded the appellant-husband to purchase a car and she preferred only to go by car, whenever they want to go out. The respondent-wife also fought with the maid servant unnecessarily with the result, she stopped coming to their house for attending domestic chores. On the other hand, the respondent-wife did not attend to the household chores such as washing, sweeping and cooking and made the appellant-husband to buy dinner from restaurants. During their visit to Delhi, the appellant-husband was scheduled to stay in a room provided by his company in Central Delhi, but the respondent-wife”s brother recommended a hotel called “Hilltop Palace”, where the accommodation was booked. However, by citing lack of amenities, the respondent-wife quarrelled with the appellant-husband, hence, the appellant-husband made alternative arrangement for their stay in another hotel. When the appellant-husband planned to go to Auto Expo, the respondent-wife insisted on booking a taxi rather than go by metro train and quarrelled with the appellant-husband. Even during their visit to Taj Mahal, the respondent-wife yelled towards the appellant-husband that “a person like you have no right to visit Taj Mahal” and he was “zero in looks and zero in money”. Further, on board the flight to Chennai, the respondent-wife called the appellant-husband a “lustful freak”, whereby he was put to shame and degradation in front of the other passengers. The respondent-wife did not want to beget a child and she prioritised her preference only towards employment and luxurious living. The respondent-wife was suffering from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) due to which the chances of her becoming pregnant are remote, however, she refused to take treatment for such ailment. On 30.06.2010, during a quarrel, the respondent-wife pulled him by his hair and caused damage to his scalp, therefore, fearing for his safety, he had taken shelter in a lodge throughout the night. Taking advantage of such situation, the respondent-wife deserted the matrimonial home involuntarily and thereafter, she has not chosen to return to the matrimonial home. These are all some of the accusations made by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife to contend that he was subjected to cruel treatment at the hands of the respondent-wife. 31. The respondent-wife categorically denied having quarreled with the appellant-husband. According to the respondent-wife, she never abused the appellant-husband in filthy language, as projected by him. These are all some of the accusations made by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife to contend that he was subjected to cruel treatment at the hands of the respondent-wife. 31. The respondent-wife categorically denied having quarreled with the appellant-husband. According to the respondent-wife, she never abused the appellant-husband in filthy language, as projected by him. During their trip to Delhi, as there was no hot water provision available in the lodging house, especially in the cold climate, she requested the appellant-husband to change the room and this has been blown out of proportion by him to suit his convenience. On 30.06.2010, it was the appellant-husband who assaulted the respondent-wife and therefore, she intended to give a complaint to the police. Fearing such action by the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband fled away from the house and did not return throughout the night. At that time, the respondent-wife came to know about the death of her grandmother and therefore, she tried repeatedly to establish contact with the appellant-husband, but he did not respond. The fact that the respondent-wife called the appellant-husband many times, was also admitted by him during his examination before the Family Court. Therefore, without any other alternative, she left Chennai to attend the funeral of her grandmother. Thus, it is stated that her desertion from the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband, cannot be regarded as voluntary, rather, the circumstances forced her to leave the matrimonial home. The respondent-wife both in her reply notice, Ex.P11 as well as her in deposition before the Family Court, had categorically denied the accusations made by the appellant-husband, rather, she was firm in joining the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife also filed an independent Original Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which would only show that she was always ready and willing to join the appellant-husband in the matrimonial home. 32. In the backdrop of the above rival averments, it has to be examined as to whether the acts of the respondent-wife, complained of by the appellant-husband, would fall within the scope and ambit of “cruelty”. First of all, it must be stated that the term “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act or by the Law Courts with exactitude. First of all, it must be stated that the term “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act or by the Law Courts with exactitude. At the same time, it is well settled that to bring an action within the ambit of “cruelty”, the facts and attendant circumstances based on the pleadings of the parties, have to be looked into to conclude as to whether (i) the action of one of the parties, has, in fact caused injury to the other (ii) caused irreversible fear to live in his or her company any longer (iii) whether a sustained course of humiliating or abusive treatment was resorted to largely intended to cause deep anguish, disappointment or frustration to the other spouse continuously or for a long time. These are some of the aspects to be looked into to conclude that a spouse was subjected to cruelty. Unless such acts on the part of either of the spouse is established, it cannot be said that the other party was subjected to cruelty during the course of joint living. For a broader outlook of the term “cruelty”, before venturing into the pleadings and the evidence made available in this case, useful reference can be made to the oft-quoted decision of the Supreme Court in Samar Gosh case, mentioned supra, in which certain parameters have been laid down for consideration and assessment of the definition “cruelty” and they are re-produced hereunder:- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (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. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 33. Keeping in mind the above broad parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, we proceed to consider the claim of the appellant-husband. 34. According to the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife used filthy languages which could not be described in words. The respondent-wife uttered such words on their visit to Taj Mahal, Agra and on-board, the flight to Chennai from Delhi and thereby, the husband was put to shame and degradation. Such an averment made by the appellant-husband was categorically denied by the respondent-wife in her counter statement and during the course of her examination before the Family Court. The respondent-wife also denied having abused the appellant-husband in filthy language, rather, it was a sheer imagination on the part of the appellant-husband to develop his case for the sake of bringing it within the scope and ambit of cruelty. 35. The appellant-husband has not, at the outset, indicated the date, time, the person in whose presence such words were uttered or the reason for their quarrel which warranted the respondent-wife to utter such words. Even though the appellant-husband has alleged that the respondent-wife abused him in filthy language, those averments remain largely unsubstantiated. The Family Court also re-produced the deposition of the respondent-wife on 21.06.2019, wherein the respondent-wife has categorically denied having abused the appellant-husband. Even though the appellant-husband has alleged that the respondent-wife abused him in filthy language, those averments remain largely unsubstantiated. The Family Court also re-produced the deposition of the respondent-wife on 21.06.2019, wherein the respondent-wife has categorically denied having abused the appellant-husband. While so, the burden is on the appellant-husband to prove, by acceptable evidence, that the respondent-wife, had, in fact, uttered such words. Of course, the burden on the shoulders of the appellant-husband, was heavy to substantiate those averments, which had taken place between him and the respondent-wife during a private conversation, however, unless he discharges it, he cannot expect the Court to grant a decree in his favour on the basis of such unsubstantiated allegations. In the present case, the appellant-husband merely averred that the respondent-wife had hurled abusive words towards him, but except his own pleadings, there is no other evidence to substantiate it. Even though it was contended that the respondent-wife abused the appellant-husband in front of friends, well wishers or relatives, no one was examined to add strength to such averments. Therefore, we hold that the appellant-husband failed to substantiate that the respondent-wife had abused him with filthy language and thereby treated him cruelly. The Family Court also analysed this aspect of the matter in-extenso on the basis of the deposition of the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife and we find no reason to interfere with it. 36. Admittedly, the appellant-husband had taken for rent a house at Kotturpuram, Chennai, where the respondent-wife joined him during May 2010. Here again, the appellant-husband alleged that the respondent-wife did not discharge household chores, fought with the servant maid and had driven her from the house, demanded to purchase a car, refused to take treatment for her ailment, thereby postponed the pregnancy etc., We are at a loss to understand as to how these averments would fall within the scope and ambit of “cruelty”. These averments, in our opinion, are not sufficient for us to hold that the respondent-wife had subjected the appellant-husband to matrimonial cruelty. These averments are by and large bald, vague and insignificant for us to hold that there was any cruelty committed by the respondent-wife towards the appellant-husband. The averments made by the appellant-husband, even assuming to have been proved, can largely be treated as a normal wear and tear that may happen in families. These averments are by and large bald, vague and insignificant for us to hold that there was any cruelty committed by the respondent-wife towards the appellant-husband. The averments made by the appellant-husband, even assuming to have been proved, can largely be treated as a normal wear and tear that may happen in families. The differences or dispute between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife, as projected in these appeals, are trivial and they are not such that they warrant dissolution of the marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. These averments will not qualify the term “cruelty” warranting a decree of divorce to be granted in favour of the appellant-husband. The Family Court, upon a well considered approach, has declined to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband on the ground that the appellant-husband had failed to prove the averments he made in the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage. We are in entire agreement of such a conclusion arrived at by the Family Court. 37. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband contended that on 30.06.2010, due to a trivial quarrel, the respondent-wife pulled the appellant-husband by his hair and caused damage to his scalp. This was clearly spoken by the appellant-husband in his evidence and therefore, on this ground alone, a decree of divorce has to be granted. However, we find that this averment was categorically denied by the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife went on to state that it was the appellant-husband who strangled her and unable to bear such assault, the respondent-wife intended to give a Police complaint. Fearing Police action, the appellant-husband fled away from the house and stayed in a lodge on that night. This statement of the respondent-wife that she would prefer a Police complaint, has not been denied by the appellant-husband. The circumstances under which the respondent-wife intended to approach the Police, would stand testimony to the fact that the appellant-husband is the aggressor, who had physically assaulted the respondent-wife. If not, there is no reason for the appellant-husband to flee away from his house and to take shelter in a lodging house, leaving the respondent-wife alone in the house. When the appellant-husband had exhibited a blame-worthy conduct, he is not entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 38. If not, there is no reason for the appellant-husband to flee away from his house and to take shelter in a lodging house, leaving the respondent-wife alone in the house. When the appellant-husband had exhibited a blame-worthy conduct, he is not entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 38. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband would vehemently contend that atleast from 30.06.2010 the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are residing separately, the matrimonial discord is such that there is no scope for re-union and that the marriage life between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife is irretrievably broken. We are not in agreement with such a submission made on behalf of the appellant-husband for the simple reason that the appellant-husband has filed the Original Petition for dissolution of marriage only on the ground of cruelty and not on the ground of desertion. Even otherwise, we notice that the desertion of the respondent-wife from 30.06.2010 cannot be regarded as the one with an intention to part with the matrimonial company of the appellant-husband permanently. On the other hand, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home on hearing the death of her grandmother. In fact, there were several mediations that had taken place at the behest of the elders in the family to patch up the differences between the couple, but those meetings were not attended by the appellant-husband and he has carefully evaded them. In such circumstances, we see no reason to take note of the long separation between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. Further, from the beginning, the respondent-wife, has clearly expressed her intention to join the appellant-husband and to continue the matrimonial journey. In such circumstance also, the long and continued separation of the couple cannot be considered by us to trample the well-considered order of the Family Court. 39. For all the reasons recorded above, we confirm the Judgment and Decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in O.P. No. 4323 of 2011 as well as O.P. No. 1763 of 2014 on the file of VII Additional Family Court, Chennai. Resultantly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellant-husband-husband are dismissed. No costs.