JUDGMENT : S.VAIDYANATHAN, G.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the fair order, granting divorce to the respondent/appellant's husband, by the learned Judge, Family Court, in I.D.O.P.No.15 of 2018, dated 14.10.2019.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the wife being aggrieved by the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the Family Court, Sivagangai, dated 14.10.2019. 2. The parties are Christians by religion. They got married on 20.05.2005 at Vyakula Matha Church, Thirukalli Village, Ilayankudi Taluk. At the time of marriage, the respondent/husband was serving in Army. After the marriage, he left the appellant/wife at his parents' house and joined duty. He used to visit his family during his leave period. Being the spouse of Army Personnel, the appellant got employment as a Teacher under Servicemen quota. Since 20.10.2005 she is working as a Teacher. After getting employment, the attitude of the appellant changed and whenever the respondent came to his native during leave, he found that his wife leading a wayward life, developed intimacy with her colleague by name, Sasidharan. Instead of staying with his parents and taking care of his age old parents and mentally retarded sister, she was staying with her parents, she used to go to School along with the said Sasidharan in his two wheeler and even during his visit, she used to stay at her parents during weekend and go to School from her parents' house. She stopped contacting the respondent/husband over phone and refused to lead congenial marital life even during his short visits to the native. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. 3. The appellant herein has filed a detailed counter, wherein, she has stated that the allegations found in the petition are not true. After marriage, on 20.05.2005 with fond hope that the in-laws will take proper care of her in the absence of her husband, who is serving in the Army, she entered the marital life, however, she was not treated properly by her in-laws in the absence of her husband. Her father-in-law was not a man of good conduct. He used to misbehave with her and tortured her. Knowing about that, her husband arranged for a separate accommodation for her in the first floor of the in-laws house. Her father-in-law was not a man of good conduct. He used to misbehave with her and tortured her. Knowing about that, her husband arranged for a separate accommodation for her in the first floor of the in-laws house. Despite that, her father-in-law did not change his attitude and used to abuse her in drunken stage. Whenever her husband came on leave, she used to complain about this. But, her husband did not care to prevent the same. The conduct of the father-in-law has caused severe mental torture. In the said circumstances, the father of the appellant/wife viz., Arulanand died and the Village elders advised her to stay in her parents' house and visit Thirukalli Village whenever her husband comes down to the native on leave. Accordingly, she was staying in her parents' house and attending her duty. Since she did not conceive even after six years of marriage, they decided to have a test tube baby in the year 2011. However, her husband refused to take the medicines prescribed by the Doctor and used to take drinks and smoke, further, forced her to have intercourse frequently and tortured her sexually. Whenever her husband came to his native on leave, he used to roam around, drink and go to home at odd hours and tortured her by all means. She was not given proper status of a wife and did not care for her comfort. In respect of the property referred in the petition, it is pleaded that, for the said property, consideration was paid by her, but under threat, her husband forced to get the property registered in his name. Her jewels were pledged by her husband and he borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, for which, he neither paid the interest nor the principal to redeem the jewels. Since she has been continuously tortured and subjected to cruelty, her health got deteriorated and she was admitted in the Hospital as inpatient for nearly 15 days. During that time, her husband did not visit her or again any care for her medical treatment. But, at the same time, she heard that he was staying with one Jacqueline, W/o. Vedamuthu. The allegation of adulteress life with one Sasidharan is false, contrarily, her husband has illicit relationship with one Metilada and threatening to marry her and for that purpose, forcing her to sign blank papers. 4. But, at the same time, she heard that he was staying with one Jacqueline, W/o. Vedamuthu. The allegation of adulteress life with one Sasidharan is false, contrarily, her husband has illicit relationship with one Metilada and threatening to marry her and for that purpose, forcing her to sign blank papers. 4. Before the trial Court, three witnesses were examined and seven exhibits were marked on the side of the respondent/husband. On the side of the appellant/wife, she was examined as R.W.1 and one document viz., reply notice was marked as Ex.R.1. 5. The trial Court though held that there is no proof for adultery and desertion, regarding cruelty, the trial Court has taken note of the reply notice Ex.R.1. which highlighted the cruelty caused by the husband to the wife, held that there is allegation exchanged mutually between the parties regarding cruelty and adultery. Even after 13 years of marriage, there is no issues to them and attempts to have a child through medical intervention, did not fructify. Therefore, in view of the mutual mistrust and accusation, the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Therefore, granted divorce and dissolved the marriage. 6. The wife as respondent aggrieved by the decree of dissolution of marriage, has preferred the appeal on the ground that the trial Court while rightly held that there is no proof for adultery and there is no proof for desertion and also no proof for cruelty caused by the appellant/wife, ought not to have dissolved the marriage. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife would submit that the petition filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act ought to have been dismissed, since the respondent/husband has failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the appellant. 8. This Court before considering the appeal on merits, pending appeal, explored the possibility of amicable settlement, but it failed. Hence, requested the counsels to submit their arguments on merits. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife would submit that the petition, which is filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of cruelty does not satisfy the required ingredient. Hence, requested the counsels to submit their arguments on merits. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife would submit that the petition, which is filed under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of cruelty does not satisfy the required ingredient. The respondent/husband being in Army and serving in North India, the apprehension in his mind that she would cause harm or injury if he live with the appellant/wife, is baseless and unfounded. There is no such averment in the pleadings or in the evidence. The other grounds like adultery and desertion though pleaded, the petition for divorce was not allowed on that ground. The trial Court has rightly held that there is no evidence to hold that the respondent/wife has committed adultery or desertion. In such circumstances, the order of the trial Court that the allegation of cruelty by both the parties, has to led irretrievable break down of the marriage is perverse and to be reversed. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband would submit that the respondent is in Army, serving in Srinagar at present and substantial portion of his life had been in North India, serving the Nation. He married the appellant in the year 2005. Except for the first six years of their marital life, the remaining period has become very horrible for the respondent/husband and whenever he visited to the native during short leave of around 30 days, he was not able to have a happy married life with the appellant. Her frequent quarrel, abuse, complaints, refusal to be with his parents and above all, making allegations of adultery had led to mental torture for more than five years. There is no cohabitation between them and the appellant herein wantonly withdrawn from the marital relationship. 11. Insofar as the evidence let in by the parties to prove their respective case is concerned, this Court finds that in support of his case, the respondent/husband himself was examined as P.W.1. The father of the respondent/husband was examined as P.W.2 and one Antonysamy was examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 is the third party, distant relative of the respondent. 11. Insofar as the evidence let in by the parties to prove their respective case is concerned, this Court finds that in support of his case, the respondent/husband himself was examined as P.W.1. The father of the respondent/husband was examined as P.W.2 and one Antonysamy was examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 is the third party, distant relative of the respondent. He has spoken about the frequent quarrels between the husband and wife and has witnessed the appellant/wife going along with a male in a two wheeler and on enquiry, he came to know that the said person is Sasidharan, a teacher working with the appellant. He has also deposed in his chief-examination that the respondent is a tee-totaller and not a drunkard. The said witness has been subjected to cross-examination, except impeaching his conduct by suggesting that he is a drunkard and was removed from service for being a drunkard, there is no suggestion or evidence elicited through this witness by cross-examination. 12. As far as the appellant is concerned, she has mounted the witness box. In chief-examination, by way of an affidavit, she has reiterated what she has stated in her counter. But, except marking her reply notice, no other documents filed to support that she underwent fertility treatment during the year 2011 and that did not fructify due to non-cooperation of the respondent. It is also to be noted that in the very same paragraph in the proof affidavit, the appellant at one breath had submitted that her husband refused to take medicines for test tube baby as per the advice of the Doctor and at the same time, she also alleged that he used to force her to have intercourse at odd hours and cause sexual torture. Also, she has made certain allegations about purchase of property, mortgaging of jewels and forcible transfer of Patta. For those allegations, there is no documentary evidence on the side of the appellant. 13. The appellant has made very serious allegations of mis-behavior against the father of the respondent, who has mounted the witness box and been examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 is 61 years old man, retired from Army, living with his wife and mentally retarded daughter. He had spoken about the behavior of the appellant and has attempted to reconcile his son and daughter-in-law to save the marriage. He was subjected to cross-examination. P.W.2 is 61 years old man, retired from Army, living with his wife and mentally retarded daughter. He had spoken about the behavior of the appellant and has attempted to reconcile his son and daughter-in-law to save the marriage. He was subjected to cross-examination. The cross-examination centers on the property and nothing worth to impeach the character or veracity of this evidence. 14. In the above said circumstances, the evidence placed before the Court indicates that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was not cordial after 2006. The dispute and misunderstanding between the parties and their family members had arisen, which has led to withdrawal from the marital company. The cross-examination and suggestion put on behalf of the appellant to the witnesses clearly indicates that the insistent of transfer of husband property in her name to have a separate marital home has led to break down. The respondent, a person serving in Army, has visited his native after long interval. The appellant/wife, who is employed, is expected to be in the company of her husband, who visited the native on short leave. However, the evidence and the conduct of the appellant/wife indicate that she was not inclined to be in the company of the respondent/husband. She has not denied the allegation that she refused to live along with her in-laws, which is very close to her place of employment. 15. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the conclusion of the trial Court that the marriage between the parties has broken and reached the stage of impossibility of re-union cannot be held as perverse or baseless. 16. Harm by torturing the person mentally by conduct will fall within the scope of Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, which reads as follows:- ''10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage.- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent?- (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... (v) ..... (vi) ..... (vii) ..... (viii) ..... (ix) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... (v) ..... (vi) ..... (vii) ..... (viii) ..... (ix) ..... (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.'' 17. In view of the above conclusion, this Court holds that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.