JUDGMENT Vishal Mishra, J. - The first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is being filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Shivpuri, whereby the application filed under Section 13 (1) (ia), (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage dated 08.04.2013 with the defendant/ appellant has been allowed. The appeal was admitted on 05.02.2019. All the efforts regarding amicable settlement between the parties have failed. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up and finally being heard. 3. It is alleged by the counsel for the appellant that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 08.04.2013 at Shivpuri as per Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter, the appellant remained with the respondent in her matrimonial house from 2013 to 2014. Application under the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed seeking dissolution of marriage dated 08.04.2013 by husband on the ground that the defendant/appellant has stayed in her matrimonial house for only three days and thereafter, she went back to her parental house. No relationship of husband and wife has developed. No issue has been born out of the marriage. The defendant used to harass the appellant as well as the family members without any reason and used to treat in-laws with cruelty for no reason. She has deserted the appellant since last more than three years. Therefore, on the basis of cruelty and desertion, the application for dissolution of the marriage has been filed. A reply has been filed by the appellant/ defendant on the ground that the behaviour of the respondent was never good with the appellant. The respondent used to consume liquor and used to beat her and abuse her. The appellant was forced to get her abortion done in a private hospital. The appellant is having no mother and father and is forced to reside with her brother as the respondent does not want to keep the appellant with him and wants divorce as he is having some illegal relation with one Halki Rathore. Therefore, for one or the other reason he used to beat her and harass her. All the other grounds which have been taken by the husband claiming divorce has been denied by the appellant. 4. Therefore, for one or the other reason he used to beat her and harass her. All the other grounds which have been taken by the husband claiming divorce has been denied by the appellant. 4. It is further contended that in the written statement a compromise has taken place in the Paramarsh Kendra but despite of that the husband is not keeping the appellant. Learned Family Court on the basis of pleadings has framed issues and on the basis of pleadings arguments and evidence available on record arrived at a conclusion that the wife has deserted the husband without rhyme and reason and is living separately since more than three years and on the basis of the evidence available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the husband is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.08.2018, the marriage dated 08.04.2013 between the parties have been dissolved. Against which the present appeal has been preferred by the wife. It is alleged that learned Family Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. It is alleged that she has categorically stated in her statement that she was forced to undergo abortion in a private hospital and as the husband is having illicit relation with some other woman. He does not want to live with the appellant. It is alleged that the factum of settlement entered into between the parties in a Paramarsh Kendra was not disputed by the parties but the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Family Court while passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that she has specifically stated before the courts below regarding the fact that she has never treated the parents of the husband with cruelty. On the contrary, she has seen the respondent having illicit relationship with one Halki Rathore of which report has been made to Mahila Police Thana, Shivpuri but the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court. The factum of forceful abortion in a private hospital was stated by her in her statement but again the same has not been taken into consideration. The statement given by the wife appellant supported by the statement of her neighbour Mamta Rathore who in her cross-examination has stated that the aforesaid aspect was told to her by the appellant Pinky Rathore. The statement given by the wife appellant supported by the statement of her neighbour Mamta Rathore who in her cross-examination has stated that the aforesaid aspect was told to her by the appellant Pinky Rathore. Learned Tribunal has not given any weightage to the aforesaid aspect of the case. It is further contended that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed, wherein an interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.600/- was awarded which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1000/-. 5. The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case has not been taken care of by the learned Court below. The wife appellant is always ready and willing to reside with her husband and after the settlement between the parties, she has gone with her husband to reside at her matrimonial house, but the respondent has forcefully turned to her matrimonial house. The aforesaid fact has not been taken into consideration by the Court below while passing the impugned judgment and decree of divorce. In such circumstances, she has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.08.2018. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the judgment and decree and has denied all the grounds raised in the appeal. It is contended that learned Court below has taken note of the fact that no oral as well as documentary evidence has been produced by the defendant in support of her averments. No copy of the complaint made to Mahila Police Thana, Shivpuri has been filed by the wife. He has drawn attention of this Court to para 21 of the judgment, wherein learned Court below has considered the aspect that in proceedings before Paramarsh Committee wife has specifically denied to reside with the husband. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit given under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. and the cross-examination and has contended that after the settlement, the wife has never gone to matrimonial house with the husband. Therefore, there was no question of her forcefully leaving the matrimonial house. On the contrary, she has treated the parents with cruelty and has deserted the husband for more than three years. Learned Court below has rightly dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the case and has rightly passed the judgment and decree and dissolved the marriage between the parties. Therefore, there was no question of her forcefully leaving the matrimonial house. On the contrary, she has treated the parents with cruelty and has deserted the husband for more than three years. Learned Court below has rightly dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the case and has rightly passed the judgment and decree and dissolved the marriage between the parties. The impugned judgment and decree has rightly been passed and the same does not call for any interference. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the marriage took place on 08.04.2013 from a Sammelan (lkewfgd lEesyu). The wife has remained in the matrimonial house for a short period and thereafter, she returned to her parental house. An application for settlement was filed by the respondent before Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra in the year of 2014 wherein the wife has turned up but she has refused to go and live with her husband. Learned Court below has considered the aspect that there are no relation of husband and wife, as the wife has remained in the matrimonial house only for three days after marriage. The husband in his statement has specifically stated that his mother and brother are dependent upon him. His mother is having very less vision and his brother is somewhat mentally retarded and is doing labour work. It is further mentioned in the statement that on his application for settlement, the wife has categorically refused to go and live with the husband. He has further stated that the wife (Pinky) has specifically stated to her mama that she does not want to live with the husband Pawan Rathore and she does not like him. The statement of Mama Dhaniram Rathore was also recorded wherein he has stated that Pinky (wife) refused to live with her husband. In para 5 of the cross-examination, he has further stated that he has tried to settle the matter between husband and wife in the community but the wife has refused to live with the husband. 9. The statement of Mama Dhaniram Rathore was also recorded wherein he has stated that Pinky (wife) refused to live with her husband. In para 5 of the cross-examination, he has further stated that he has tried to settle the matter between husband and wife in the community but the wife has refused to live with the husband. 9. From the record, it is seen that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the year of 2015 meaning thereby the wife was not residing with her husband and she had resided only for three days after marriage. In the proceedings before the Paramarsh Samiti which is held in the year 2014, the wife has refused to live with her husband. The present application for divorce has been filed in the year of 2017 meaning thereby that both husband and wife are living separately for more than three years. The statement given by the husband is that the wife has refused to live with her husband remained uncontroverted and there is no specific denial by the wife to the aforesaid statement. 10. From the record, it is further seen that the wife has levelled allegations but the husband is having illicit relationship with some other woman but the same cannot be established by any cogent evidence. Even so said complaint made to the police authorities has not been produced by the wife in support of the aforesaid contention. 11. It is settled principle of law that the allegation of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of other spouse on which the allegation is levelled and as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Vs. Meena, (2016) AIR SC 4599 and that can be a valid ground for decree of divorce. In the present case, there are specific allegations made by the wife against husband that the husband is having extramarital affairs with other woman and she has made a report to the police authorities of the aforesaid aspect but there is no report being produced by the wife in support of her statement. On the contrary, the husband has specifically denied the aforesaid aspect of the case. On the contrary, the husband has specifically denied the aforesaid aspect of the case. The factum of cruelty and desertion has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act but the aforesaid aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.V.N. Kameshwara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli, (2002) AIR SC 576 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has arrived at conclusion that : "whether the acts committed by the counter- petitioner amount to cruelty, and is to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the counter-petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the Court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter-petitioner. This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 3 MPLJ 1 has held that : "cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of this spouse same is established and/or an interference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amount to cruelty." 13. In the present case, the conduct of husband and wife is required to be seen. From the evidence available on record, it is seen that there is a specific finding recorded by learned tribunal that the wife has deserted the husband for more than two years without there being any reason. The fact is that husband and wife are living separately from each other for more than two years is also clearly seen from the record. There is no explanation by the wife for living separately. The reasons which have been taken by the wife that the husband is having an extramarital affairs or relationship with other woman is also not found to be proved by the learned court below. There is no explanation by the wife for living separately. The reasons which have been taken by the wife that the husband is having an extramarital affairs or relationship with other woman is also not found to be proved by the learned court below. No documentary evidence i.e. report which is said to be made by the wife against the husband before the police authorities is being produced by her in support of her statement. The so called report could be a vital piece of evidence in support of her arguments to demonstrate that the husband is having an extramarital affairs. The factum of dependency of mother and brother of the husband is not disputed as the wife herself has partially admitted the factum of blindness of her mother-in-law. 14. From the record, it is clear that the appellant/wife herself has refused to live with her husband as it is clearly reflected from the statement. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the findings recorded by the Court below. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah Vs. Prabhavati, (1957) AIR SC 176 s has held that : "If a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passions, for example, anger or disgust without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. It further held : " For the office of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely (1) the fact of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned : (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid." 15. In the present case, the aforesaid facts are clearly available as the factum of prohibition between the husband and the wife has not been proved in the present case. There is no relationship between husband and wife established which itself is proved by the statement of wife as she has taken a specific stand that she was subjected to forceful abortion in a private Nursing Home by the husband. The appellant could not even narrate name of the doctor or the nursing home or hospital where abortion was got done. The appellant could not even narrate name of the doctor or the nursing home or hospital where abortion was got done. No medical documents pertaining to the aforesaid has been produced by the wife nor she has got examined by the Doctor in support of her arguments. In such circumstances, the aforesaid ground of forceful abortion has not found proved by the learned Court below. In these circumstances, it is clearly established that the wife is residing separately with her husband for more than two years and has deserted the husband. The factum of cruelty has also been established as mother-in-law of the appellant is partially blind which has been admitted by her. In such circumstances, there could not be any harassment by mother-in-law to her and the same has not been established by any cogent evidence. In these circumstances, we do not find any error in the findings of the court below. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The judgment of dissolution of marriage passed by the learned Court below has rightly been passed and the same does not call for any interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, there is no merits in the appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed.