JUDGMENT : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Appellant-Husband preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Circuit Court at Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2017, whereby the petition filed by the husband/appellant for grant of decree of divorce was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that appellant/husband married the respondent/wife in the year 1998 according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, the respondent/wife joined the company of the husband and out of their wedlock, two children were born. Meantime, the wife was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi. After the marriage, the wife wanted the husband to get separated himself from his parents so that she can live independently; when husband refused to do so, she started quarreling with husband. In such a situation, it had become more tortuous for the husband to live with the wife. Ultimately, on 30.11.2015, the wife along with her children left the matrimonial home and went away to her parental home. Subsequently, wife extended threat that she would implicate the husband and his family members in a criminal case. Thereafter, counselling and social meeting took place where the efforts were made, but eventually it failed. It is stated that the wife is living separately in village Kunkuni and during this period, the husband went to bring her back but she did not return. Husband also went to the posting place of the wife to bring her back but instead of accompanying him, she lodged a false complaint against husband based on which proceedings under Sections 107, 116 (3) of Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. Since there was no change in the behaviour of the wife and she was living separately for last more than two years from the presentation of suit for divorce without any sufficient cause, husband filed petition seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce. 3. The wife filed written statement to divorce petition denying all the averments pleaded therein. She stated that prior to her marriage with the appellant/husband, she was appointed as Shiksha Karmi on 22-9-1997, she was regularized on 28.07.1998 and the appellant/husband had performed marriage with her on account of her service. 3. The wife filed written statement to divorce petition denying all the averments pleaded therein. She stated that prior to her marriage with the appellant/husband, she was appointed as Shiksha Karmi on 22-9-1997, she was regularized on 28.07.1998 and the appellant/husband had performed marriage with her on account of her service. According to the wife, after the marriage, the husband used to come on the holidays/weekends and used to take her with him to his house and thereafter he used to leave her at her place of work on the immediate working day. However, after giving birth to a girl child, who born with some defect in her eyes, the behaviour of her husband and in-laws completely changed, they started illtreating, abusing her in filthy language and assaulting her. Subsequently, they ousted her from the house on 30-11-2015, therefore, she along with her children started living in Chandrapur in a rented house. She also stated that at Chandrapur also the husband used to come at her work place and house and used to abuse and assault her for which even the Head Master of the School lodged a report against the husband in Chandrapur Police Station on 02-04-2016. The wife also lodged a report against the husband and his family members on 12-09-2016. According to the wife, she is working at Chandrapur, the husband may come and stay with her as per his convenience. 4. 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 dismissed the suit by holding that the husband/appellant failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband submits that the impugned judgment and decree are perverse, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the facts of the case as well as evidence available on record. He also submits that during the pendency of this appeal, parents of the appellant have died. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that as the appellant/husband was not ready to leave his parents, therefore, the wife used to quarrel with him and ultimately she left the matrimonial home, without any reasonable cause. He would submit that the wife was harassing the husband both mentally and physically. He submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that as the appellant/husband was not ready to leave his parents, therefore, the wife used to quarrel with him and ultimately she left the matrimonial home, without any reasonable cause. He would submit that the wife was harassing the husband both mentally and physically. According to him, there is no cohabitation between the parties for last more than two years, as the wife has deserted the husband and living separately without sufficient cause. Thus, the learned Court below ought to have granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Narendra vs. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455 and Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundati Tripathy, 2005 SAR (Civil) 749 SC. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the husband used to quarrel with the wife, his behaviour towards her was cruel and he always created hindrances in her life because of which she was not able to perform her duties properly. Appellant/Husband visited her work place many a time and quarreled with her regarding which the Headmaster of the school had lodged report against him. According to the wife, in-laws ousted her from the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Respondent/Wife is always ready to discharge her matrimonial obligation, and it is husband who doubted her fidelity and, therefore, he deserted her. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below are well merited, which do not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The husband sought decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Savitri Pandey vs. 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 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. Following the decision in Bipinchandra Case AIR 1957 SC 176 this Court again reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani vs. 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. 9. Following the decision in Bipinchandra Case AIR 1957 SC 176 this Court again reiterated the legal position in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani vs. 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.” 9. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the husband/AW-1 has stated that marriage between them was solemnized in the year 1998, out of their wedlock, two children were born and after the marriage, his wife secured job of Shiksha Karmi. It is also stated that father of the wife tried to get registered a case under Section 498A/323 of IPC against the husband and his family members, whereupon both the sides i.e. husband and the wife, were referred to the Counselling Centre, but the matter could not be settled there and the wife was found to be the bone of contention because of which the behaviour of the wife towards the husband and his family became cruel. Thereafter, from 2015 onwards, the wife is residing at her place of posting at Chandrapur and since 30.11.2015, there is no cohabitation between them. Thereafter, from 2015 onwards, the wife is residing at her place of posting at Chandrapur and since 30.11.2015, there is no cohabitation between them. When the husband went to meet his children at the place of posting of his wife, he was falsely implicated by wife under Sections 107, 116 (3) of Cr.P.C. Husband also stated that a condition was put by the wife that if he is ready to reside separately from his parents, then only she along with children will stay with him. 10. The wife/NAW-1 has stated that she had already been appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi prior to 22.09.1997 and her services were confirmed on 28.07.1998. The husband agreed to marry her for the reason that she is a government employee. Her place of posting was 3 km away from her parental house situated in village Kunkuni because of which she used to stay in her parental house and from there she used to attend her duties. She has further deposed that after three years of marriage, a baby girl named Sakshi was born. It was stated that there was some defect in the eyes of girl child because of which her in-laws and husband used to make comment on her. Again after six years of marriage, one male child namely Aishwarya was born. She denied that her father had tried to implicate her husband and in-laws under Section 498A/323 of IPC and they were sent to the counselling centre where the matter could not be settled. She has stated that the husband and his parents used to abuse her for the reason that the defect in the eyes of girl child occurred because of the mistake of her parents. When she tried to say something in reply, her husband and her parents used to beat her. Inspite of that she continued to tolerate the torture made by her in-laws. When she asked for the treatment of the eye of girl child, they (in-laws and husband) used to beat her. 11. Wife also stated that on 30.11.2015 her in-laws had ousted her from the matrimonial home and also extended threat to kill her, if she will not leave the home. When she asked for the treatment of the eye of girl child, they (in-laws and husband) used to beat her. 11. Wife also stated that on 30.11.2015 her in-laws had ousted her from the matrimonial home and also extended threat to kill her, if she will not leave the home. Thereafter, the wife informed her parents about the same on telephone on which her father came to her in-laws house along with some persons, asked her father-in-law as to why his daughter is ousted from the house. At that point of time, her father-in-law replied that his son (appellant) was not available at home and they may take their daughter back to their home. After returning from her in-laws house, she stayed at Chandrapur in a rented house along with her children. There also the appellant (her husband) used to come, abuse and extend threat to them. 12. Wife further stated in Paras 5 and 6 of her statement that the appellant/husband also came to her school and abused her in the school itself, as a result of which, on 02.04.2016, the Head Master of the school lodged report against the husband at Chandrakpur police station. Thereafter, on 12.09.2016, the wife also filed an application against the husband levelling allegation of domestic violence and acrimony. She has further deposed that the husband used to create nuisance in their life by abusing them because of which she was not able to properly perform her duties at Chandrapur. She has denied that from 2015 onwards, no cohabitation had taken place between them. It was admitted that as the husband and his parents used to beat her and had thrown her out of the house, therefore, she was residing separately. The wife had also examined her father Deen Dayal Patel as NAW-2 and Bharat Lal Patel, uncle, as NAW-3 in support of her case. These witnesses have also supported the version given by the wife. 13. The husband/AW-1 has stated that from 30.11.2015, no cohabitation has taken place between them. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware that his daughter namely Sakshi was born in the month of February, 2001. The husband himself stated that the wife was residing in her parental house for the last 8 years and, therefore, he was not in a position to say as to who is the father of girl child. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware that his daughter namely Sakshi was born in the month of February, 2001. The husband himself stated that the wife was residing in her parental house for the last 8 years and, therefore, he was not in a position to say as to who is the father of girl child. He is also not in a position to say after how many years his son Ashwarya was born. The husband himself reiterated that his wife was residing in her parental house for the last 8 years and, therefore, he is not in a position to tell as to who is the father of so called son Ashwarya. The husband also admitted that he never spent any money on the education and maintenance of his children. In cross-examination also, the husband reiterated that after 30.11.2015, no cohabitation has taken place between them. It was also admitted that on 12.09.2016, the wife lodged a report against the husband and his parents at police station Chandrapur. He also admitted that Chandrapur is 3 km away from his village. It was also admitted that the wife used to insist the husband to come to her house in the night after staying with his parents during day time. 14. Having gone through the aforesaid evidence, it is evident that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1998. The service of the wife was already confirmed on 22.09.1997 i.e. much prior to the date of marriage. The husband married the wife only on account of the fact that the wife was in government service. Hence, it is proved that the wife was performing her duties prior to her marriage. As per the version of the wife, the husband raised a doubt on her character concerning the birth of male child. In this respect, it is important to reproduce the evidence in the form of questions (put by husband himself) and answers (given by wife): “Q. Where did you sleep on 29.11.2015? Ans. I slept with you. Q. Where did you sleep on 30.11.2015? Ans. You drove me out of the house so I went to my maternal home and slept there.” From the aforesaid questions, we can see ill mentality of the husband towards the wife. Ans. I slept with you. Q. Where did you sleep on 30.11.2015? Ans. You drove me out of the house so I went to my maternal home and slept there.” From the aforesaid questions, we can see ill mentality of the husband towards the wife. It is important to note that the husband himself pleaded in the plaint that out of their wedlock two children were born and from the same, it can be inferred that the husband accepted the paternity of two children. In Para 12 of his cross-examination, the husband also admitted the fact that the wife resided with him till 30.11.2015. Hence, the act of husband in raising finger on the character of the wife is highly improbable and amounts to mental cruelty. Further, from perusal of the statement of wife, it is apparent that on 30.11.2015, she was thrown out of her in-laws house and because of which she was staying in a rented house at village Chandrapur. During this period also, the husband used to abuse and extend threat to her. The wife has produced sufficient material to demonstrate that when she was staying in a rented house in Chandrapur, the husband used to harass her mentally as well as physically. The husband has failed to refute the allegations levelled by the wife. In fact, no evidence has been produced by the husband in his defence. 15. From the above, it is clear that the allegation of cruelty levelled by the husband is not proved. As the wife is a working woman and also looking after her children, the husband should have co-operated with her, but instead of doing so, he went to her school and abused her and thereby created unpleasant scene in the school itself, as a result of which the Head Master of the school lodged report against him at Chandrapur police station and based on which the proceedings were initiated against the husband under the provisions of Section 107, 116 (3) Cr.P.C. and preliminary order was passed by SDM against the husband in which husband was directed to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to maintain peace for a period of six months. The said fact is also admitted by husband that the Head Master of the school had lodged report against him. 16. 5,000/- to maintain peace for a period of six months. The said fact is also admitted by husband that the Head Master of the school had lodged report against him. 16. Insofar as decree on the ground of desertion is concerned, for constituting such ground, element of animus deserendi should always remain present. In Smt. Rohini Kumari vs. Narendra Singh, AIR 1972 SC 459 , the Supreme Court held that desertion does not imply only a separate residence and separate living. It is also necessary that there must be a determination to put an end to marital relation and cohabitation. 17. In Geeta Jagdish Mangtani vs. Jagdish Mangtani, AIR 2005 SC 3508 , the Supreme Court, after narrating the evidence available in the case, held that the conclusion is inevitable, that there was never any attempt on the part of the wife to go to husband's house, therefore, from this fact alone animus deserendi on the part of the wife is clearly established. She has chosen to adopt a course of conduct which proves desertion on her part and that it was without a reasonable cause. Such a course of conduct over a long period indicates total abandonment of marriage. It also amounts to willful neglect of the husband by the wife. 18. In the matter of Malathi Ravi, M.D. vs. B.V. Ravi, M.D. (2014) 7 SCC 640 , the Supreme Court has approved its earlier judgment on the point in the matter of Savitri Pandey (supra) and has reiterated the same view regarding desertion and the nature of proof required in law to establish the marital offence. 19. In view of the above settled legal position and on the basis of material available on record, it is apparent that on 30.11.2015, on account of some dispute, the in-laws had thrown out the respondent/wife from the matrimonial home and also extended threat to kill if she will not leave the home. Thereafter, the wife started residing in a rented house at Chandrapur. There also the husband did not leave her and continued to raise dispute and the husband was also indulged in committing assault (marpeet) and because of which she faced difficulty in performing her official duties. Thereafter, the wife started residing in a rented house at Chandrapur. There also the husband did not leave her and continued to raise dispute and the husband was also indulged in committing assault (marpeet) and because of which she faced difficulty in performing her official duties. As her children were studying in class 12th and class 8th respectively, she had to tolerate the torture given by the husband and she also stated that during that period, the husband used to visit her and had physical relations with her and, therefore, the allegation of the husband that after 30.11.2015, no cohabitation took place between them is found to be false. 20. The evidence available on record would suggest in definite terms that the wife had just and reasonable cause to reside separately from the husband as the husband was suspecting her fidelity, whereas conduct of the husband itself is blameworthy. Further, the husband used to create hindrance and harass the wife at her workplace, therefore, the same would construe as a cruelty towards the wife. 21. So far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, the same being distinguishable on facts are of no help to the appellant. 22. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Family Court do not call for any interference. 23. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 24. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.