JUDGMENT/ORDER K.S.MUDAGAL,J. - Aggrieved by dismissal of his petition for divorce, the petitioner in M.C.No.95/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Mysore has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant filed M.C.No.95/2007 under Sec. 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) before the trial Court seeking decree for dissolution of marriage. 3. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 4. The petitioner filed M.C.No.95/2007 against the respondent before the trial Court seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. That was contested by the respondent. At the first instance, by the judgment dtd. 25/2/2010 the trial Court dismissed the said petition with cost of Rs.5,000.00 holding that the alleged cruelty and desertion were not proved. 5. The petitioner challenged that judgment before this Court in M.F.A.No.2755/2010 (FC). This Court by judgment dtd. 6/6/2012 set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the matter to the trial Court to enable the petitioner and the respondent both to adduce further evidence before the trial Court. While so remanding this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000.00 as litigation expenses payable to the respondent. 6. After such remand, the trial Court recorded further evidence. Again by the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the grounds alleged were not proved. 7. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (i) After marriage, for sometime they led happy marital life. Thereafter the respondent started showing hostile attitude towards the petitioner, his sister, mother and brother. She was not showing any responsibility of taking care of his aged and infirm mother. Whenever his sister or brother visited his house, the respondent used to be very unfriendly and creating hostile atmosphere in the family. Therefore they stopped visiting his house. Due to which the petitioner was hurt and disappointed. He tolerated that in the interest of family. Later, she started showing hostile attitude against him also. She used to loose her temper and behave in an unruly manner. She was threatening him that she would commit suicide. She even confessed before him that prior to marriage she made unsuccessful attempts of committing suicide. Her such conduct was due to psychiatric imbalance. Later, she started showing hostile attitude against him also. She used to loose her temper and behave in an unruly manner. She was threatening him that she would commit suicide. She even confessed before him that prior to marriage she made unsuccessful attempts of committing suicide. Her such conduct was due to psychiatric imbalance. Whenever the petitioner's brother or sister called him on phone or visited their house, she used to pick up quarrel and abuse him in foul language. On one such occasion, the respondent left the house abruptly without intimating any family members causing severe anxiety and panic to him and his family members. He was forced to search and bring her back. (ii) In June 2004, when the petitioner was preparing for promotional interview, instead of cooperating with him, the respondent picked up quarrel with him and left the matrimonial home abusing him. She used to be violent. On one occasion when she was asked to switch off the light, she became violent and broke the switch, thereby her bangles were broken. Threatening to commit suicide by broken bangle piece she cut her wrist causing bleeding injury. On another occasion, when both of them had gone to some public restaurant, she picked up quarrel in the presence of public shouting loudly and causing him humiliation. She never attended to any household work. She had attention deficit disorder. Suppressing that fact, the marriage was performed. She used to be rude, throw things at him violently and lock herself in the room of the house stating that she would commit suicide. (iii) On 1/8/2004, the petitioner got issued notice to the mother and the sister of the respondent informing them about the behaviour of the respondent. Though such notice was served, they did not respond. The respondent left his house on 1/8/2004 and did not return to join him, despite his attempt. Thereby the respondent is guilty of cruelty and willful desertion. Thus he sought decree of divorce. 8. The defence of the respondent was as follows: All the allegations of violent behaviour, non cooperation, showing hostile attitude towards his siblings, not taking care of his mother, obstructing him for preparing for promotional interview, she leaving the house abruptly were denied. The allegation that she is suffering from attention deficit disorder was also denied. 8. The defence of the respondent was as follows: All the allegations of violent behaviour, non cooperation, showing hostile attitude towards his siblings, not taking care of his mother, obstructing him for preparing for promotional interview, she leaving the house abruptly were denied. The allegation that she is suffering from attention deficit disorder was also denied. She is B.E. graduate and working as Lecturer which would not have been possible if she had mental disorder. She used to attend to all household work. The mother of the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Despite she bringing that to the notice of the petitioner that fell on his deaf ears, he did not take any steps to address that issue. She hails from a very cultured family. Keeping in view the family reputation of both side, she did not file any complaint before the police though she thought of doing so, hoping that the petitioner and his mother would improve. That did not happen. Ultimately they threw her out of the matrimonial home. To cover up their own mistakes, the petitioner got issued notice. After such notice, there was attempt to reconcile which did not materialize. She never deserted him or subjected him to cruelty. She is willing to join him. Thus she sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. In support of his case, initially the petitioner was examined as PW.1, his mother was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On remand of the matter, his brother was examined as PW.3 on his behalf and Exs.P8 to P15 were marked. The respondent was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf. 10. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree, on second occasion also dismissed the petition holding that the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not proved. 11. Sri G.S.Balagangadhar, learned Counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds of the appeal submits that the evidence of PW.1, PWs.2 and 3 his mother and brother was consistent about cruelty and desertion. He further submits that though the mother and sister of the respondent received the notice Ex.P5, they did not reply to the same denying the allegations. Further Exs.P8 to P10 correspondence between the petitioner and PW.3 at an undisputed point of time show that the petitioner had complained about the conduct of the respondent. He further submits that though the mother and sister of the respondent received the notice Ex.P5, they did not reply to the same denying the allegations. Further Exs.P8 to P10 correspondence between the petitioner and PW.3 at an undisputed point of time show that the petitioner had complained about the conduct of the respondent. Therefore it cannot be said that the allegations in the petition were subsequently invented. The trial Court was not justified in holding that they were unreliable. Exs.P11 to P15 the call details, Airtel Bill and receipts for having paid the bill corroborate the oral evidence of the petitioner that the respondent left home without information causing him and his mother anxiety. Thus he seeks reversal of the trial Court judgment. 12. The respondent though served is unrepresented. On hearing the appellant's Counsel and on perusal of the records, the point that arises for consideration is "Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the cruelty and desertion alleged by the petitioner were not proved"? Analysis 13. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 21/4/2003 at Mysore. That the petitioner was working as Engineer in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bengaluru. The respondent was also B.E. graduate. She was working as Lecturer in Sadvidya Education Institution, Mysore. After marriage, she resigned her job in the said Institution to join the petitioner in Bengaluru. Within six months from the date of marriage, the petitioner was transferred to Mysore. Therefore they returned to Mysore and set up a rented house in Mysore. The petitioner, his mother and the respondent started living in that house. The respondent again took her job in Sadvidya Education Institution. On 2/4/2007, he filed petition for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Reg. Cruelty: 14. The acts of cruelty alleged by the petitioner are as follows: (i) The respondent had hostile attitude against the petitioner, his siblings and mother. She was not tolerating the visits of his siblings to his house or they communicating with each other even on phone. She used to behave very rudely with them. (ii) She was not shouldering the responsibility of taking care of his mother and the domestic work. (iii) Whenever she used to get upset with him, his siblings and mother, she used to loose her temper, behave in unruly manner. She used to behave very rudely with them. (ii) She was not shouldering the responsibility of taking care of his mother and the domestic work. (iii) Whenever she used to get upset with him, his siblings and mother, she used to loose her temper, behave in unruly manner. (iv) She had psychiatric issue, was posing threats of suicide, but did not cooperate for consultation with psychiatrist or for Expert's Counseling. She confessed that before marriage, she attempted to commit suicide. (v) Due to her mental imbalance, once she broke her bangles while violently switching off the light and with the broken bangle inflicted injury on her wrist. (vi) In June 2004, when he was preparing for his promotional interview, picking up a quarrel and abusing him, she left the house without any information during night hours. On search, she was found in her parental house, when asked to return threatened to commit suicide. (vii) When they had gone to a public restaurant, for silly matter she picked up quarrel and created the scene before the public and humiliated him. 15. The respondent disputed all those allegations. Per contra she contended that her mother-in-law was atrocious towards her and the petitioner did not take any steps to protect her from such violence which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Therefore the petitioner was required to prove the said incident of cruelty. 16. Whether the acts alleged amount to cruelty in terms of Sec. 13(1)(ib) of the Act also has to be considered. The Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering which acts amount to mental cruelty, in para 101 of the judgment in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 . case laid down the following guidelines: "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. 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. (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. 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 sterilization 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." (Emphasis supplied) 17. The above judgment goes to show that the normal wear and tear in the matrimonial life or possessiveness or selfishness of one spouse themselves do not amount to cruelty. At the first place to prove the serious allegations of psychological disorder of the respondent, except the self serving testimony of the petitioner, his mother and brother, there was no other independent evidence. The petitioner himself admitted that the respondent was B.E. Graduate, prior to the marriage and after their return to Mysore, she was employed as Lecturer in Sadvidya Education Institution. He does not deny the suggestion that she has earned the reputation as good lecturer and she has no black mark in her career, but only pleads his ignorance. 18. The unsubstantiated serious allegation of mental ill health of other spouse itself amounts to cruelty to her. If she had any such serious mental health issue, certainly it could not have been possible for her to continue in her employment. 18. The unsubstantiated serious allegation of mental ill health of other spouse itself amounts to cruelty to her. If she had any such serious mental health issue, certainly it could not have been possible for her to continue in her employment. Moreover, according to the petitioner himself till they set up the house in Mysore, they led happy married life. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was mentally unstable. Further his petition was not under Sec. 13(1)(iii) of the Act. In the light of the judgment in Samar Ghosh's case referred to supra the assumed act of the respondent being possessive of him and not tolerating his closeness to his siblings, his mother itself does not amount to the act of mental cruelty. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Darshan Gupta vs. Radhika Gupta, (2013) 9 SCC 1 . held in cases where the decree of divorce is sought on the ground of mental disorder of the other spouse, he should establish that the wife's behaviour was so aggressive, erratic and abnormal that she was not able to discharge the matrimonial obligations. 20. In Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476 . case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the allegations of such cruelty should be specific and the particulars have to be pleaded. 21. In the petition, the dates of alleged incidents of inflicting self injury with the broken bangle piece, place and date of creating a show in the restaurant, the date of she missing from the house after a quarrel are not mentioned. PW.1 in his cross-examination admits that before marriage, both of them met and discussed. As per his evidence, after marriage they lived together in Bangalore for about two months. But his brother PW.3 in page 5 of his cross- examination dtd. 28/1/2013 states that the petitioner was transferred to Mysore in October 2003. The marriage was solemnized on 21/4/2003. That goes to show that for about six months, couple lived together at Bengaluru. 22. PW.1 admits that even after shifting to Mysore, they used to go to Bengaluru together in weekends. To the suggestion that after they shifting to Mysore, they used to go for walk after office hours, he says that occasionally they used to go like that. 23. 22. PW.1 admits that even after shifting to Mysore, they used to go to Bengaluru together in weekends. To the suggestion that after they shifting to Mysore, they used to go for walk after office hours, he says that occasionally they used to go like that. 23. So far as the allegation of the respondent quarreling on account of his visit to his sister's house and vanishing from the house (chief-examination para 8), he says that the said incident took place in December 2003. But in the petition or in Ex.P5 it is not stated that such incident took place in December 2003. Similarly, the particulars of the date and time of the alleged incident of the respondent fighting, and in that background handling the electric switch violently and self infliction of injury on her wrist were not stated in the petition or in the chief-examination. But in the cross- examination, he states that such incident took place in January 2004. But in petition para 8 he has stated that such incident took place in June 2004. In his cross-examination dtd. 4/2/2013, PW.1 states that for the self inflicted injury of the respondent, he got her treated in Kamakshi Hospital on 10/3/2004. Neither he produced any medical records to substantiate the same nor he summoned such records from Kamakshi Hospital. 24. So far as the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the petitioner himself did not whisper anything in the petition and in his deposition that the respondent attempted to harm the life and limb of his mother PW.2. But PW.2 states that the respondent to cause harm to her used to pour oil on the toilet floor, so that she slips and falls and was releasing the cooking gas from the gas cylinder. Such allegations were not found even in the notice Ex.P5 allegedly got issued by the petitioner to his mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Even PW.3 does not speak to any such acts of the respondent. Such unsubstantiated wild allegations of PW.2 goes to show that there is force in the contention of the respondent that mother-in-law was ill-treating her. The trial Court rejected the said evidence on the ground that it was only an afterthought and it was motivated. 25. Even PW.3 does not speak to any such acts of the respondent. Such unsubstantiated wild allegations of PW.2 goes to show that there is force in the contention of the respondent that mother-in-law was ill-treating her. The trial Court rejected the said evidence on the ground that it was only an afterthought and it was motivated. 25. After the matter was remanded, to prove that the respondent after the quarrel left home, in the night causing panic to the petitioner, he examined PW.3 and got marked Exs.P8 to P15. It is the contention of the respondent that they were all subsequently concocted by the petitioner and PW.3. 26. The petitioner contended that being panic of the conduct of the respondent, he had made frequent phone calls to the sisters of the respondent, to his sister, mother and etc. Ex.P11 is the alleged call details, Exs.P12 and P13 are search reports and Exs.P14 and P15 are Airtel Bill and receipt for the billing month of 11/5/2004 to 10/6/2004. 27. Exs.P11 to P15 were all secondary evidence of the digital evidence. They were not accompanied by the certificate as required under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The concerned persons were not examined to prove them. Therefore they had no evidentiary value at all. 28. Exs.P8 and P9 are the letters dtd. 1/7/2004 and 2/7/2004 allegedly written by the petitioner to PW.3 and Ex.P10 is the letter dtd. 26/7/2004 allegedly written by PW.3 to the petitioner where both of them communicated to each other about the cruel acts of the respondent. In Ex.P8 it is said that the incident of the respondent vanishing from the house took place on 9/6/2004 at 7.30 p.m. In para 7 of the petition he has narrated that incident. In para 24 of his cross- examination he states that the said incident took place in December 2003. Such inconsistencies in the pleadings, evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW3 and Exs.P8 to P10 show that those documents are unreliable. 29. Further PW.3 in his cross-examination admits that since the time of his marriage, he was living with his wife separately. He says in December 2003 he was living in Shankarpuram Extension, Bengaluru. He admits that there was no disharmony between him and the respondent. He pleads his total ignorance about the employment of the respondent before and after marriage. 29. Further PW.3 in his cross-examination admits that since the time of his marriage, he was living with his wife separately. He says in December 2003 he was living in Shankarpuram Extension, Bengaluru. He admits that there was no disharmony between him and the respondent. He pleads his total ignorance about the employment of the respondent before and after marriage. He admits that he left to Delhi on 6/6/2003 on transfer and the petitioner was transferred to Mysore in October 2003. He also admits that after transfer of the petitioner to Mysore, his mother lived at Bengaluru for only about two months. He says that he does not know where the petitioner was residing between October 2003 to December 2003. He further admits that in Ex.P10 there is no mention of the respondent disconnecting his phone call. 30. PW.3 further admits that Ex.P8 does not bear the postal seal on the stamp. He further admits that in the initial round of the case, the petitioner was aware of those letters and he had no impediment to produce them before the Court. He states that except Exs.P8 to P10 he has not preserved any other letters. To crown all such admissions of PW.3 his own alleged letter Ex.P10 states that they were conversing to each other on phone. According to PW.1 and PW.3, they were having cell phones at that time. If so, it goes hard to accept that despite phone conversations, having such enormous professional responsibility, again they keep writing such letters. Such evidence of PW.3 rightly did not inspire the confidence of the trial Court regarding the alleged acts of cruelty. 31. It was contended that at the earliest point of time, the petitioner by issuing notice Ex.P5 dtd. 3/8/2004 notified the mother and the sister of the respondent about cruelty of the respondent and they did not respond to that, that amounts to admission of the cruelty. First of all, if the petitioner had an issue with the respondent, as both of them were well qualified, he should have got issued notice to the respondent and not to her mother and sister. There is no explanation for such strange conduct of the petitioner. At any rate, the alleged implied admission of the mother and sister of the respondent in no way amounts to the admission of the respondent. There is no explanation for such strange conduct of the petitioner. At any rate, the alleged implied admission of the mother and sister of the respondent in no way amounts to the admission of the respondent. Further, RW.1 states that her mother and sister discussed with the petitioner and his family members and tried for conciliation, therefore that was not replied. The fact of the petitioner not filing the petition for two years thereafter probabilizes her contention that there was an attempt of conciliation and therefore that was not replied. Under the circumstances, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 serve no purpose to the petitioner. The trial Court after considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances rightly held that the ground of cruelty warranting decree of divorce was not proved. Reg. Desertion: 32. The petitioner contends that the respondent has deserted him since 1/8/2004 (para 14 of the petition) and has not returned to join him. It is the settled principle of law that to grant decree of divorce mere separate living of the other spouse is not sufficient. But the petitioner has to show that there is animus deserendi that means willful desertion without any excuse on the part of the other spouse. 33. In this case, the respondent contends that till they shifted to Mysore and the mother of the petitioner joined them, herself and the petitioner lived happily and cordially. She further claims that all along she was discharging her matrimonial duties. She claims that the mother of the petitioner ill-treated her physically and mentally, the petitioner instead of addressing that issue himself started to ill-treat her. She further claims that the petitioner himself virtually thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Therefore he is not entitled to decree for divorce on the ground of desertion. 34. The contention of the petitioner with regard to the respondent subjecting him to cruelty is already rejected. As already observed, the petitioner's mother in her evidence before the Court makes baseless, malicious allegations of attempt on her life by the respondent. Similarly, the petitioner made the baseless allegations of the mental ill-health of the respondent cruelty etc. Such allegations against the respondent a well qualified person and a Lecturer certainly hurts her feeling and amount to cruelty to her. 35. Similarly, the petitioner made the baseless allegations of the mental ill-health of the respondent cruelty etc. Such allegations against the respondent a well qualified person and a Lecturer certainly hurts her feeling and amount to cruelty to her. 35. It is the further contention of the respondent that to avoid she communicating to him, the petitioner himself changed his cell phone number and did not intimate the same to her. PW.1 in para 28 of his cross-examination dtd. 12/9/2008 unequivocally admits that in 2004 she had suffered a leg fracture and she was in her mother's house. Though he denies the suggestion that she was speaking to him on her mobile phone from her parental house, he admits that he had changed his mobile number and had not given such changed number to her. Though he says that he called the respondent from the changed number but she was not replying, he does not explain why he changed the mobile number and did not furnish the changed number to her. 36. In the cross-examination dtd. 12/9/2008, to the suggestion that the respondent has earned good reputation as a Lecturer, he says that he does not know that. Similarly when it was suggested that she has blameless career, he says that he does not know that. That goes to show that the petitioner himself had withdrawn from the society of the respondent. 37. Such evidence of the petitioner shows that the respondent took shelter in her mother's house for sufficient reasons and there was no willful desertion on her part. Conclusion 38. The trial Court on sound appreciation of the evidence and the law on the point has rejected the petition for divorce. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Therefore the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed with costs.