JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person. 2. Appellant-husband is aggrieved by dismissal of the Original Suit (MTS) No. 12 of 2011 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide judgment dated 24th February, 2018 and decree dated 7th March, 2018 rendered by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. 3. As per the case of the parties, after entering into the nuptial knot on 6th June, 2009 at Ranchi as per Hindu custom and rites, the spouses lived only for 4 days and respondent left for her parental house in the company of her brother on 12th June, 2009. Since then, there is no marital reunion, on the contrary, there are spate of litigations between them. Whether in those facts and circumstances, the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of fault theory is the seminal question to be answered to the present appeal. Learned Family Court, Ranchi in its detailed judgment, did not found either of the grounds of cruelty or desertion made out. 4. Facts pleaded by the parties are briefly set out hereunder: Appellant husband pleaded before the Family Court that beyond four days of their togetherness in the matrimonial home after solemnization of marriage on 6th June, 2009 at Ranchi there has been no union of thought. During the short period of four days, he was not allowed to consummate the marriage as she did not look happy. Thereafter, she went to her parental house at Ranchi and from there to her work place at Delhi, whereas plaintiff was working at Aligarh. During telephonic talks, he was conveyed by her that it is not possible for her to lead happy conjugal life with him. Despite his persuasion she declined to come back to the matrimonial home. His father also wrote letter to the father of the defendant to persuade her to come back, but all went in vain. Effort for settlement through mediation was made on 1st November, 2010 at Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center, but it did not fructify because defendant wife did not join him on their train journey to Delhi from Dhanbad. Therefore, the marriage remains only a legal relationship. Husband has been a victim of cruelty as she has not permitted him to consummate the marriage. Therefore, the marriage remains only a legal relationship. Husband has been a victim of cruelty as she has not permitted him to consummate the marriage. She deserted him continuously for 19 months before presentation of petition for divorce. 5. Defendant wife in her written statement accepted the factum of marriage and her stay for four days at village Karai in the matrimonial house. However, she alleged taunt and humiliation for not bringing sufficient dowry during her brief stay. She was also taunted for not bringing a Car. In these circumstances, she left the matrimonial home along with her brother. She categorically denied the assertion of the petitioner-husband that the marriage between the parties was not consummated. She had not left the matrimonial home on her own volition. The petitioner and his family members never tried to bring her back instead they only wanted to extract dowry from her father. She accepted that petitioner had come to see her ailing mother at Delhi but she denied that she had refused to go back to her conjugal life. She has averred that petitioner never wanted to keep her unless and until the demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakhs was fulfilled. She also denied any misbehaviour by her parents with the petitioner. She contended that she had to leave her job because she was denied leave for joining her matrimonial home. Still she was not taken to the matrimonial home by the petitioner. As per the respondent, she had packed up and reached from Delhi to Ranchi. Her brother was also humiliated when he had gone to the matrimonial home for demand of an Innova Car as dowry. According to the defendant, the petitioner has only tried to create false allegations to seek divorce. 6. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication: (I) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (II) Whether the marriage took place between petitioner and respondent on 6th of June, 2009? (III) Has the petitioner got any valid cause of action for the suit? (IV) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (V) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reason? (VI) Whether the respondent has left the petitioner’s house without any rhyme and reason? (VII) Whether the petitioner is taking advantage of his own wrong? (VIII) Whether the respondent has refused to reside with the petitioner? (IV) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (V) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reason? (VI) Whether the respondent has left the petitioner’s house without any rhyme and reason? (VII) Whether the petitioner is taking advantage of his own wrong? (VIII) Whether the respondent has refused to reside with the petitioner? (IX) Is the petitioner entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? Mediation failed and the case was adjudicated on contest. During trial, petitioner examined himself as P.W.-2 and his friend, Anil Kumar as P.W.1. The following documents were adduced on his behalf: 1. Ext. 1 is Postal Receipt, II. Ext. 2 is Speed Post Receipt, III. Ext. 3 is Copy of Rail E-ticket, IV. Ext. 3/1 is Rail E-ticket, V. Ext. 4 & 4/a are Hotel Yatri Niwas Receipt, VI. Ext.5 is Notice dated 29.09.2019 issued by Mediation Center, Delhi High Court, VII. Ext. 6 is Letter dated 28.10.2010 and VIII. Ext. 7 is Postal Receipt dated 28.10.2010 Defendant wife examined herself as DW-1, her brother Sanjeev Kumar as DW-2 and one distant relative Sanjeev Kumar @ Santu as DW-3. Defendant adduced the following documentary evidence in support of her: I. Ext. A is P.C of Mukul Computer Engineering Certificate, II. Ext. B is P.C. of Mukul’s Bio-data, III. Ext. C is Original Envelope, IV. Ext. D is Marriage Card, V. Ext. E is Original Bill of Magadh Tent House, VI. Ext. F is Original Bill of Hotel Crown Plaza, VII. Ext. G to G/11 are Twelve Photographs, VIII. Ext. H is P.C of Cr.M.P. 2389/2012, IX. Ext. I is Five Envelopes, X. Ext. J is P.C of Cr.M.P. 1381/2012 XI. Ext. K to K/10 are C.C of Envelope, XII. Ext. L is Speed Post Envelope, XIII. Ext. M is P.C of Letter of Janak Deo Prasad, XIV. Ext. N is C.C of Registration Acceptance, XV. Ext. O is P.C of Experience Certificate, XVI. Ext. P to P/3 are C.C of four train Tickets, XVII. Ext. Q is Salary Slip, XVIII. Ext. R is Transcribed Copy of Mobile Conversation, XIX. Ext. S is P.C of MTS 12/2011 deposition, XX. Ext. T is Transcribed SMS, XXI. Ext. U is C.C of Bus Ticket, XXII. Ext. V is C.C of Bill given by I.G Packers & Movers, XXIII. Ext. W is P.C of A.B.A No. 3824/2011, XXIV. Ext. Q is Salary Slip, XVIII. Ext. R is Transcribed Copy of Mobile Conversation, XIX. Ext. S is P.C of MTS 12/2011 deposition, XX. Ext. T is Transcribed SMS, XXI. Ext. U is C.C of Bus Ticket, XXII. Ext. V is C.C of Bill given by I.G Packers & Movers, XXIII. Ext. W is P.C of A.B.A No. 3824/2011, XXIV. Ext. X is C.C of Charge framed on petitioner and his parents XXV. Ext. Y is C.C of SA and order-sheet passed in 1381/2012, XXVI. Ext. Z to Z/1 are the C.C of order-sheet in Cr.M.P. No. 572/2012 XXVII. Ext. aa is C.C of Slp. (Cri.) 5769/2012, XXVIII. Ext. bb is P.C of Land Revenue Bill, XXIX. Ext. cc is P.C of Judgment-SLP (Cri.) 7907/2016 XXX. Ext. dd is P.C of CA in SLP (cri.)-7907/2016, XXXI. Ext. ee is CC of order-sheet in 1329©/2016 XXXII. Ext. ff is CC of Bail petition & Bail granted in 1329©/2016 dated 16.12.2017 XXXIII. Ext. gg is P.C of Cri. Rev-208/2017 petition XXXIV. Ext. hh is CC of passed in Cri.Rev. No. 208/2-17, XXXV. Ext. ii is one C.D with five recording Some documents were also marked for identification. Learned Family Court took up the Issue nos. I, II, and III first and decided it in favour of the petitioner. Issue nos. V, VI and VII were also taken up together as being interconnected being one issues of desertion under Section 13 (1) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, since alleged desertion was not for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, such ground was not made out. Petitioner failed on the point of desertion. 7. The vital issue left for adjudication was whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty under Issue no. IV. Learned Family Court discussed the evidence of the parties in detail and also the law on the subject by citing the decisions in the case of Viswanath Sitaram Agrawal Vs. San Sarle Vishwanath Agrawal reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288 and in the case of A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur reported in AIR 2005 (SC) 534 and concluded that from the evidence of the parties allegation of non-consummation of marriage is not made out since there is a clear denial about refusal in cohabitation by the defendant-wife. San Sarle Vishwanath Agrawal reported in (2012) 7 SCC 288 and in the case of A. Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur reported in AIR 2005 (SC) 534 and concluded that from the evidence of the parties allegation of non-consummation of marriage is not made out since there is a clear denial about refusal in cohabitation by the defendant-wife. Further no specific instance of any cruelty as stated by the petitioner of such nature as would create an apprehension in the mind of the husband that he cannot reasonably be accepted to live with the defendant could be made out on the part of the petitioner. Learned Family Court also noted that petitioner never resorted to restitution of conjugal right if his intentions were bonafide. Instances of cruelty cited by the petitioner were not found to be weighty enough to decree divorce. Accordingly, this issue was decided against him. Finding on the issue no. VII was rather ambiguous since according to learned Family Court defendant could not establish that petitioner had indulged in bigamy except an institution of Criminal Complaint Case no. 1329 of 2016 under Section 494 of I.P.C with such allegation. Based on these findings, the suit was dismissed. 8. Appellant during the course of submission has primarily tried to canvass before us that the marriage is beyond repair with no emotional bond left. Maintaining a legal tie, in such circumstances, amounts to mental cruelty upon the husband. Marriage has irretrievably broken down. Therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties to lead their own independent life. Several instances have been cited on behalf of the appellant to impress that respondent has never shown any inclination to join conjugal life. She instead inflicted cruelty by institution of criminal cases under Section 498A of I.P.C and other allied Sections, in which, of course, the appellant has been convicted. She also alleged bigamy on his part and had lodged another criminal case, which is still pending trial. There is no union of thought amongst them. Appellant has lost his job. He was an engineer and now stays at his village in Bihar. He has become a mental wreck because of the estranged relationship and several rounds of litigation. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that efforts for reunion have failed. There is no union of thought amongst them. Appellant has lost his job. He was an engineer and now stays at his village in Bihar. He has become a mental wreck because of the estranged relationship and several rounds of litigation. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that efforts for reunion have failed. Respondents did not participate in the mediation exercise held at Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the year 2010. Learned counsel for the appellant however does not dispute that the grounds of desertion were technically not made out since the suit was filed on 12th January, 2011 without completing the mandatory period of 2 years as stipulated under Section 13 (1) (1-a) under the Act of 1955. However, he submitted that the sequence of facts and circumstances and the spate of litigation between the parties do lead to an inescapable conclusion that the appellant has been a victim of mental cruelty. Mental cruelty is a recognized ground to decree divorce. In support, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh –Vs.- Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , para-101. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in F.A. No. 11 of 2017 (Nisha Rashmi Vs. Kamlesh Pandey) vide judgment dated 16th July, 2018. In that case also the spouses had lived only for 3-4 days after marriage in the year 2010 and a criminal case was instituted in July, 2015 with an intention to embarrass and harass the husband and his family members. This Court relying upon the decision of Samar Ghosh (supra) felt that the judgment of learned Family Court granting divorce did not suffer from any perversity in appreciation of evidence or any such errors of law or on facts, which required interference in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on a decision of this Bench in F.A. No. 68 of 2014 (Mira Singh Vs. Ranvijay Singh) vide judgment dated 21st January, 2020. In the said decision also, this Court felt that there were no emotional ties left between the parties as admittedly they have been living in separation since 2008 and there are no offspring born out of the marriage. Ranvijay Singh) vide judgment dated 21st January, 2020. In the said decision also, this Court felt that there were no emotional ties left between the parties as admittedly they have been living in separation since 2008 and there are no offspring born out of the marriage. In such circumstances, keeping alive a legal tie of matrimonial relationship would neither be in the interest of the appellant-wife nor the respondent husband. It would amount to unnecessarily keeping the marriage alive when there are no love or affection left between the parties. It is submitted that in the present case also the evidence on record; the statement of the respondent wife and the spate of litigations pursued by her clearly indicates that there is no emotional bond or love left towards the appellant. However, by refusing to part with the marriage on agreed terms, she intends to wreck vengeance on the husband for no ostensible reason. In such circumstances, appellant should not be allowed to suffer a relationship in name when the very emotional bond to keep a marital tie alive cannot be resurrected. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon a decision of Apex Court rendered in the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy reported in (2005) 7 SCC 353 . In the said case, the Apex Court found that parties were living separately for almost 14 years and endeavors to effect reconciliation had failed. Thus, it was held that marriage had irretrievably broken down. The order of the Family Court granting divorce was accordingly confirmed. 9. Respondent in person has strongly contested the case. She has taken the Court through the evidence of the appellant and the respondent’ witnesses as well and a series of documentary evidence adduced by her numbering I to XXXII. In substance, her plea is two folds (i) that she has never forsaken the relationship on her part and has always been willing to reunite (ii) husband being the male protagonist in the society, did not make any serious endeavour to bring her back to the matrimonial home. After four days of togetherness during Honeymoon period when she went back to her parents, no effort was made by the husband and his family members to bring her back. She was employed in a Bank at Noida and had to rejoin her job after about 15 days of the marriage. After four days of togetherness during Honeymoon period when she went back to her parents, no effort was made by the husband and his family members to bring her back. She was employed in a Bank at Noida and had to rejoin her job after about 15 days of the marriage. Never thereafter, the appellant showed any intention to bring her back to the matrimonial home or to maintain conjugal ties. She had to ultimately leave her job on 3rd March, 2010. She succumbed to the constant pressures of the appellant and his family as a precondition of resuming matrimonial ties. Her family was not in a position to honour the demands of dowry. She had to leave her job in tragic circumstances on 3rd March, 2010. All along the appellant and his family members kept pressuring her on their demand of dowry including an Innova Car. During conversation through messages appellant used to insist upon her to ask for share in her paternal property as she had left the job. Such transcripts of SMS have been adduced as Ext.-T during trial. She being a victim of constant mental torture on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, was compelled to institute a case under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry of Prohibition Act, 1961. There is total absence of any intention on the part of the husband to restitute the marriage, since he never sought such a relief before the Family Court. The suit for divorce was instituted within 2 years of marriage on 12th January, 2011 on totally misconceived grounds of desertion and cruelty when the ingredients of desertion i.e., animus deserendi and physical desertion for a period of 2 years were not made out. On the contrary, it was the respondent, who was the victim of mental cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 10. Respondent has adverted to the various documentary evidence adduced during trial to show that on each occasion she has been dragged into litigations up to the High Court and also to the Supreme Court in connection with the case under Section 498A of Cr.P.C instituted by her. Appellant has not been able to get any relief up to the Apex Court even in maintenance matter. Appellant has not been able to get any relief up to the Apex Court even in maintenance matter. The allegations of cruelty in marriage, on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, now stands vindicated on the conviction of the appellant in Complaint Case no. 1948 of 2010 vide judgment dated 16.9.2019. The conviction has been recorded for the offence under Section 498A of I.P.C, only against the husband. It has been alleged that appellant has indulged in second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage with the respondent, for which he is facing a case under Section 494 of I.P.C being Complaint Case no. 1329(C) of 2016. Learned Court has taken cognizance against the appellant for the offence under Section 494 of IPC, though cognizance was not taken against the other family members. However, trial in the said case is still pending. It is contended by the respondent that she has suffered immensely on account of the conduct of the appellant for more than 10 years by now. Hindu Marriage Act does not allow a party who is responsible for inflicting cruelty upon the other spouse to take advantage of his wrongs. Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act is referred in support. It is submitted that the appellant has hurled unwarranted allegations that the marriage was not consummated. There is a clear denial on the part of the respondents at paragraph-31 of her written statement in response to para-17 of the plaint. During trial also she has categorically denied this assertion. This kind of assertion diminishes the personality of the respondent, who has also been willing to resume conjugal ties, but not under coercion or undue terms. Based on the aforesaid pleadings on record and the evidence adduced during trial, respondent has submitted that the appellant should not be allowed to succeed on grounds of irretrievable broken down of marriage when he has been found responsible for inflicting cruelty upon her and forcing her to live away from the matrimonial home for so long. Law does not permit the solemnity of Hindu Marriage Act to be dissolved on such deliberate act and conduct of one of the spouses. As such, the appeal being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed. 11. We now proceed to deal with the rival submissions of the parties and the grounds of challenge. Law does not permit the solemnity of Hindu Marriage Act to be dissolved on such deliberate act and conduct of one of the spouses. As such, the appeal being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed. 11. We now proceed to deal with the rival submissions of the parties and the grounds of challenge. At the outset, be it noted that even the appellant has not challenged the findings on desertion since the mandatory period of 2 years was not completed before presentation of the plaint as stipulated under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act of 1955. Appeal has primarily been pressed on the grounds of mental cruelty and irretrievable break down of marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the illustrative instances of cruelty in the case of Samar Ghosh-Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 , Para-101. At this stage, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 . In the case of K. Srinivas Rao, the Apex Court decreed the suit for divorce holding the wife responsible for mental cruelty. At the same time it was observed that the wife by her conduct had caused mental cruelty to the appellant husband and the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Apex Court also observed at para-29 of the report that staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable. It was found that the same had happened in the said case. The Apex Court had taken note of these scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statements made by the wife in her complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell alleging that the mother of the appellant husband had asked her to sleep with his father. It was that kind of humiliation which had caused great anguish to the husband. His family was pressurized by false and indecent statement made in the complaint. It was that kind of humiliation which had caused great anguish to the husband. His family was pressurized by false and indecent statement made in the complaint. It was therefore observed that such statement can cause mental cruelty. The Apex Court also took into consideration the factum of irretrievable break down of marriage but also observed that irretrievable break down of marriage as a ground of divorce is not available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 though a recommendation has been made to the Union in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 . The observations of the Apex Court in this background rendered in the case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra) at Para-38 is to be borne in mind while deciding a case of this nature. Para-38 of the report is quoted hereunder: “38. Before parting, we wish to touch upon an issue which needs to be discussed in the interest of victims of the matrimonial disputes. Though in this case, we have recorded a finding that by her conduct, the respondent wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant husband, we may not be understood, however, to have said that the fault lies only with the respondent wife. In matrimonial disputes there is hardly any case where one spouse is entirely at fault. But, then, before the dispute assumes alarming proportions, someone must make efforts to make parties see reason. In this case, if at the earliest stage, before the respondent wife filed the complaint making indecent allegations against her mother-in-law, she were to be counselled by an independent and sensible elder or if the parties were sent to a mediation centre or if they had access to a pre-litigation clinic, perhaps the bitterness would not have escalated. Things would not have come to such a pass if, at the earliest, somebody had mediated between the two. It is possible that the respondent wife was desperate to save the marriage. Perhaps, in desperation, she lost balance and went on filing complaints. It is possible that she was misguided. Perhaps, the appellant husband should have forgiven her indiscretion in filing complaints in the larger interest of matrimony. But, the way the respondent wife approached the problem was wrong. It portrays a vindictive mind. She caused extreme mental cruelty to the appellant husband. It is possible that she was misguided. Perhaps, the appellant husband should have forgiven her indiscretion in filing complaints in the larger interest of matrimony. But, the way the respondent wife approached the problem was wrong. It portrays a vindictive mind. She caused extreme mental cruelty to the appellant husband. Now the marriage is beyond repair.” The Apex Court has poignantly observed that in the matrimonial dispute there is hardly any case where one spouse is entirely at fault. But, then, before the dispute assumes alarming proportions, someone must make effort to make the party see reason. The Apex Court also observed that though in this case a finding of mental cruelty was recorded against the wife but they may not be understood to have said that the fault lies only with the respondent wife. Quite often misunderstanding results due to a trivial dispute which can be sorted out through Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. 12. Here is a case, where the parties have lived for four days after their marriage and since then they are living separately. However, it is also beyond dispute that the appellant herein has been convicted for a charge of cruelty in marriage under Section 498A of IPC under Complaint Case No. 1948 of 2010 instituted on 28th November, 2010 vide judgment dated 16th September, 2019. The suit for divorce was instituted by him on 12th January, 2011 after institution of the criminal case. If the appellant was serious in restoring conjugal ties, he did not show true intent any time before by seeking restitution of conjugal right under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Respondent has complained of mental cruelty, as a result of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and the competent court of criminal jurisdiction has found the charges proved. She had a reasonable cause to stay away from the matrimonial home. Therefore, any animus to desert the petitioner husband cannot be made out though there has been physical separation since 12th June, 2009 till date between the parties. Respondent has categorically denied the assertions of non-consummation of marriage within that four days period of their conjugal life and appellant has miserably failed to substantiate it. Therefore, any animus to desert the petitioner husband cannot be made out though there has been physical separation since 12th June, 2009 till date between the parties. Respondent has categorically denied the assertions of non-consummation of marriage within that four days period of their conjugal life and appellant has miserably failed to substantiate it. On the other hand, the allegations of cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry have been established on conviction of the appellant for the charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. A series of litigations have been fought between the parties. (i) the complaint case under Section 498A of IPC, in which conviction has already been recorded; (ii) the complaint case relating to charge of bigamy where appellant is facing trial and (iii) in relation to grant of maintenance. Offshoots of these three litigations have journeyed up to the Apex Court in one or the other case. There is documentary evidence adduced by the respondent in support of the contentions. These prosecutions at the behest of the respondent, in furtherance of seeking lawful remedies available to her, cannot be held against the respondent as an instance of mental cruelty. This has also been held in a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Vs. Manjeet Singh reported in (2019) 8 SCC 308 , appellant cannot take advantage of the prosecutions launched by the respondent to make out a case of mental cruelty if the charges of cruelty in marriage stands established after a proper trial. Moreover, a wife has a rightful claim to maintenance if she is made to live in separation due to reasonable cause. As such, prosecution of a case of maintenance ultimately decided in her favour with grant of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- also cannot be taken to be against her. We need not make any comments on the allegations of bigamy as the trial of the said complaint case is still pending. 13. It is however apparent that both the spouses are victims of circumstances. In a matrimonial dispute, it is often difficult to find as to where the fault lies. However, a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty or desertion can only be decreed if the petitioner spouse is able to establish the ingredients thereof on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence. In a matrimonial dispute, it is often difficult to find as to where the fault lies. However, a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty or desertion can only be decreed if the petitioner spouse is able to establish the ingredients thereof on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence. A marriage under Hindu Law is considered to be sacrosanct, not to be easily dissolved. Sufferer may be both the parties. Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a recognized ground of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, though it is considered as a weighty ground if other grounds available under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are established. 14. From the discussions made hereinabove, we are not persuaded to hold that respondent has been guilty of inflicting mental cruelty upon the appellant over all these years. The matrimonial tie indeed has suffered due to estranged relationship over a period of more than 10 years but if cruelty in marriage has been established upon the respondent due to the acts of the appellant, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. This principle is embodied in Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy (Supra) on the plea of irretrievable break down of marriage. We are afraid this Court cannot decree the suit on such grounds as it is not recognizd under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. The illustrations of mental cruelty cited at Para-101 of the case of Samar Ghosh are also hedged with the condition that the concept of mental cruelty is impossible of a comprehensive definition and no Court should even attempt to do that. It differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious believes, human values and their value system. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance but there are certain illustrative instances enumerated by the Apex Court at Para-101 of the report. 15. In the present case, there has been strong resistance on the part of the wife to any thought of divorce by the appellant husband. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance but there are certain illustrative instances enumerated by the Apex Court at Para-101 of the report. 15. In the present case, there has been strong resistance on the part of the wife to any thought of divorce by the appellant husband. The chronology of facts do not suggest a deliberate neglect or indifference on the part of the respondent of the appellant to the normal standards of conjugal kindness. The petitioner has been unable to establish cruelty of such an extent that he bears a reasonable apprehension that it is impossible to live with her. On the contrary it can be inferred that the petitioner has always made things difficult for the respondent to lead a conjugal life. Therefore, though the ultimate victim is the conjugal relationship, but we are not in a position to hold that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, moreover such a ground is not a recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case of Nisha Rashmi relied upon by the petitioner-appellant had distinguishable features and cannot fit in the facts of the present case. Though, in that case the wife had stayed for 4-5 days only, after the marriage but neither had she made any overtures to resume conjugal life nor alleged any acts of cruelty in marriage over a period of 5 years there from till she instituted a case under Section 498A of IPC in July, 2015. Learned Family Court in the facts of that case was persuaded to hold that such a criminal allegation was intended to harass and embarrass the petitioner and his family members. In the present case, the complaint case under Section 498A of IPC was lodged in November, 2010 after 1 year and five months of the marriage only and the charges stand established. Therefore, resemblance to one fact of the decision does not make it a binding ratio in the facts of the present case. We are therefore not convinced of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 16. Having perused the impugned judgment, we find that the findings are well reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence of the parties. They do not suffer from any perversity or errors of law or facts which deserves interference in the appellate jurisdiction. We are therefore not convinced of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 16. Having perused the impugned judgment, we find that the findings are well reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence of the parties. They do not suffer from any perversity or errors of law or facts which deserves interference in the appellate jurisdiction. Having considered the rival submission of the parties in the light of the discussions made and the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any ground made out on the part of the appellant to dislodge the findings of learned Family Court. Accordingly, the appeal has to fail. It is dismissed. Decree accordingly. IAs are closed.