JUDGMENT : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act, 1955”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.213-A/2015 by the Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, whereby, an application preferred by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, 1955, for granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8.5.1970 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the 'Gauna' ceremony, the respondent-wife joined the company of the husband. The appellant alleged that after the marriage, he gave complete facilities to the wife to lead a comfortable life. As he started aging, the wife did not take care and support him and instead troubled and harassed him. Due to her such cruel behaviour, he is living separately from her. It is alleged that on 5.8.2011, the respondent along with her son kicked him out of his own house, which he has constructed and since then, he has no permanent residence to live. He has also made a report to the Police Station – Newai in this regard. He stated that since 5.8.2011, there is no relation between them; the respondent deserted, abused and misbehaved with him, therefore, it has become extremely difficult for him to live with her any longer. The respondent-wife has also preferred an application for maintenance before the Consultancy Department of Bhilai Steel Plant on 30.7.2012 and on the said application, a compromise was made and Rs.7000/- monthly maintenance was granted to the respondent on a condition that she will take no legal action against him without giving information to the Consultancy Department. However, the respondent contravened the said condition and on 20.4.2015, sent a legal notice to the appellant alleging that since the appellant is living with another woman, the amount of maintenance should be enhanced. The appellant replied to the notice and filed a suit seeking divorce on 8.5.2015. The respondent-wife denied the averments and stated that the appellant has developed illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother namely Bholiya Bai and out of such illicit relationship, one son has born. The appellant replied to the notice and filed a suit seeking divorce on 8.5.2015. The respondent-wife denied the averments and stated that the appellant has developed illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother namely Bholiya Bai and out of such illicit relationship, one son has born. After sometime, he left Bholiya Bai and kept another woman namely Sarawati Devi and out of such illicit relationship, one daughter was also born. On account of such acts of the appellant, the respondent suffered extreme mental stress and physical discomfort and a quarrel took place and thereafter, the appellant left her and started residing separately at village Durg with his concubine (Sarwaswati Devi) and her daughter. She stated that the appellant is working on the post of AGM and getting monthly salary of Rs.1 lakh and paying a very meagre amount of maintenance of Rs.7000/- to her, therefore, to enhance the amount of compensation, the notice was sent. It is alleged that due to misconduct of the appellant, she is suffering mentally and physically. It is stated by the wife that inspite of all this, she is ready to live with the appellant, but the appellant himself is not willing to keep her. She stated that the appellant has filed the suit for divorce pleading false and baseless facts, hence, it was prayed that the appeal of the appellant be dismissed. 3. On the basis of the averments made by the parties, the issues were framed and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Family Court decided all the issues in negative and held that the appellant failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion and hence, dismissed the suit. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and the evidence with utmost circumspection. 5. In the present case, the appellant has examined himself as PW-1 Rejji Kumar as PW-2, Pradeep Kumar as PW-3 (the Family Court has wrongly mentioned PW-2) and Chinnodo as PW-4. Per contra, the respondent examined herself as DW-1. 6. The petitioner has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 , has observed thus in paras 6 and 9 : “6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. 6. The petitioner has sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 , has observed thus in paras 6 and 9 : “6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. “Cruelty”, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. In the instant case both the trial court as well as the High Court have found on facts that the wife had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed to the respondent. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly show that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life. 9. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly show that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life. 9. Following the decision in Bipinchandra case [ AIR 1957 SC 176 ] this Court again reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena [ AIR 1964 SC 40 ] by holding that in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause. For the offence of desertion so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there (1) the factum 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. For holding desertion as proved the inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not in another case be capable of leading to the same inference; that is to say the facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual acts of separation.” 7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, Girdhari (PW-1), in order to prove 'cruelty', has deposed that the respondent is a lady of distrustful character and she always used to quarrel and harass him. He mentioned a particular incident of 5.8.2011 and stated that on the said date, the respondent along with his sons quarrelled with him and also beat and abused him. He further stated that on 5.8.2011, they all were residing in the same house. For the incident alleged by the appellant-husband, there is no eye-witness and the witnesses Rejji Kumar (PW-2) and Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) have categorically admitted that they have no personal knowledge about the above incident and they have come to know about the incident from the information given by the appellant himself. For the incident alleged by the appellant-husband, there is no eye-witness and the witnesses Rejji Kumar (PW-2) and Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) have categorically admitted that they have no personal knowledge about the above incident and they have come to know about the incident from the information given by the appellant himself. There is no report in this regard in the police station, which has either been exhibited or proved. 8. Respondent-Gomti Bai specifically deposed that after sometime of marriage, the appellant developed illicit relationship with her sister-in-law Bholiya Bai (wife of the younger brother of the appellant) and out of such relationship, one Sanjay Kumar was born. After sometime, the appellant left Bholiya Bai and kept another woman Saraswati Devi and out of such illicit relationship, one daughter Geeta Devi was also born. The above acts show that the appellant himself neglected the wife and started residing separately with Saraswati Devi at Vijay Nagar, Durg. 9. Gomti Devi (DW-1) stated that she wanted to reside with her husband voluntarily and discharge her marital obligations but the appellant himself having such illicit relationships, started living separately. For the appellant’s such misconduct, the respondent has also filed a Criminal Complaint case before JMFC, Durg on 15.9.2016, registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.8102/2016, the order sheet of the said case has been filed as Ex.D/1, which shows that after examination of the respondent and his three sons, an offence under Section 494 of the IPC was registered against the appellant for having illicit relationship with Saraswati Devi. Against it, the appellant preferred Criminal Revision bearing No.228 of 2016 before the ASJ, Durg, which was dismissed on 19.10.2016. The appellant himself admitted in the cross-examination at para 17 that in the medical treatment card issued on 1.7.2001, he has mentioned the name of Geeta Devi as his family member (daughter). 10. The appellant denied the relationship with Saraswati Devi and stated that Saraswati devi is his maid. Though the appellant stated about an incident of the year 1987 in his pleadings when the respondent has given rat poison to kill him, but in the cross-examination, he stated that he has not made any report in this regard. 10. The appellant denied the relationship with Saraswati Devi and stated that Saraswati devi is his maid. Though the appellant stated about an incident of the year 1987 in his pleadings when the respondent has given rat poison to kill him, but in the cross-examination, he stated that he has not made any report in this regard. The appellant has also stated one incident of the year 1986, for which, no averment has been made in the petition, that when he had gone to duty, his father and his uncle (Phupha) has seen the respondent with one Santosh Sonkar in an objectionable condition. 11. Having gone through the aforesaid evidence, it is very explicit that the appellant has developed the allegation beyond the pleadings to the extent that the respondent does not wish to join his company, she has given poison at some point of time and he also caught her red handed with Santosh Sonkar in an objectionable condition. Such allegations are not pleaded and also not proved by the appellant, which may amount to cruelty. Further, the respondent-wife has given sufficient evidence that the appellant himself was having illicit relationship with one Bholiya Bai (sister-in-law) and thereafter, with another woman and out of such relationships, children were also born. To cover up such illicit relationships, the appellant has made such wild allegations against the wife and thus, stigmatized and attacked her character, which itself amounts to ‘mental cruelty’. He further alleged that on 5.8.2011, the respondent has ousted him from the house, but the fact remains that the respondent always wanted to reside with the appellant. It appears that the conduct of the appellant itself is blameworthy and he cannot gain for his own fault. 12. No party can be permitted to carve out the ground for destroying the family, which is the basic unit of the society. The foundation of the family rests on the institution of a legal and valid marriage. The approach of the Court should be to preserve the matrimonial home and be reluctant to dissolve the marriage merely at the insistence of one of the parties. 13. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.