JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2020 (decree signed on 26.11.2020) passed by Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 691 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below. 4. A suit was preferred by the plaintiff (appellant herein) u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which, inter alia it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant (respondent herein) was solemnized on 24.05.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage both started residing together but the marriage was not consummated due to which the couple does not have any issue. The defendant also did not discharge her marital obligations and also did not prepare food for the plaintiff and her in-laws. The defendant is a lady of volatile temperament who does not want to stay under the guidance of the plaintiff and wants to move freely without the consent of the plaintiff or his family members. It has been stated that the matter was informed to the parents of the defendant who came and took away the defendant to their house on 03.05.2013 and despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff she did not return to her matrimonial house. It has been stated that the plaintiff is residing separately from the defendant since 03.05.2013. 5. On being noticed the defendant had appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegation leveled against the defendant has been denied. It has further been stated that if the defendant is not interested to consummate marriage with the plaintiff there was no occasion for her to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication : (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action for the suit ? 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication : (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action for the suit ? (iii) Whether the marriage of plaintiff and defendant is fit to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty ? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief claimed ? 7. The plaintiff has examined three witnesses in support of his case. 8. P.W.1 (Suresh Kumar) is the plaintiff who has stated about his marriage solemnized with the defendant on 24.05.2010. After marriage, he and the defendant started residing together but no physical relationship was established as the defendant was averse to such relationship. After a few days the defendant started behaving rudely and she never involved herself in doing the domestic chores. He confronted such behavior with patience at the initial stage on the hope that the situation will improve in future but there was no change in the behavior of the defendant. He was faced with no option but to inform the parents of the defendant who came and threatened him of implicating him in a dowry related case. The defendant is a woman of unstable temperament and she used to go out of the house without even seeking his permission. He has stated that on 03.05.2013, the defendant left her matrimonial house taking with her the jewelries and went to her parents’ house. He has further stated that from 03.05.2013, he does not have any relationship with the defendant In cross-examination, he has deposed that the defendant has filed a case u/s 498A of the IPC against him in Chhatisgarh as well as a case u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Janjgir in which an order was passed on 30.03.2016 directing him to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the defendant. He is employed in M/s BCCL and has a take home salary of Rs.25,000/-. In the mediation the defendant had expressed her willingness to reside with her husband. 9. P.W.2 (Amit Dubey) is acquainted with both the sides whose sworn statement is similar to that of P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff had disclosed to him that physical relationship was not established by him with the defendant. In the mediation the defendant had expressed her willingness to reside with her husband. 9. P.W.2 (Amit Dubey) is acquainted with both the sides whose sworn statement is similar to that of P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff had disclosed to him that physical relationship was not established by him with the defendant. He does not know as to whether the defendant is willing to reside with the plaintiff or not. 10. P.W.3 (Prakash Bauri) is acquainted with both the parties and his version in the sworn statement is similar to that of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is employed at M/s BCCL and he used to work with the plaintiff at Patherdih Colliery. After marriage the defendant stayed at her matrimonial house for 15-20 days and thereafter went to her parents’ place. Her intermittent stay at her matrimonial house continued for 2-2½ years. He has deposed that the plaintiff had gone to bring the defendant thrice though he does not remember the dates of such visits. The nature of relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as known to him is on the basis of what has been disclosed to him by the plaintiff. 11. The defendant has examined only herself as a witness. 12. D.W.1 (Sarita Devi) is the defendant who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the plaintiff on 24.05.2010 and after marriage she started residing with the plaintiff. After a month of the marriage the plaintiff had brought her to his workplace at Dhanbad where she started leading a peaceful life. However, after a few days the plaintiff started committing torture upon her for not giving an Apache motorcycle and gold chain and ring as dowry. When she informed this to her mother, she expressed her inability to meet such demand and this infuriated the plaintiff who committed assault upon her and left her at her parents’ place. When a meeting was convened at the local level the plaintiff took her back to Dhanbad and assaulted her for creating pressure upon him by the society. In the year 2013 when her mother came to Dhanbad to meet her the plaintiff once again repeated the earlier demands made but her mother once again showed her inability to meet such demand at which she and her mother were abused and ousted from the house. In the year 2013 when her mother came to Dhanbad to meet her the plaintiff once again repeated the earlier demands made but her mother once again showed her inability to meet such demand at which she and her mother were abused and ousted from the house. She has stated that she and her mother remained the whole night outside the house of the plaintiff but he refused to give entry and thereafter she along with her mother went to her mother’s place. In spite of repeated requests, the plaintiff was defiant in not keeping her at which she had to file a criminal case against the plaintiff u/s 498A of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Champa, Chhatisgarh which is still pending. She has stated that she is always ready and willing to restore marital ties with the plaintiff and she had also filed a suit u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Janjgir, Chhatisgarh in which a decree was passed in her favour but the plaintiff did not comply with the order of the court. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she is staying separate from her husband from 2013 onwards. She has denied the suggestion that she did not enter into a physical relationship with the plaintiff and that she used to quarrel and abuse her husband and in-laws. 13. It has been submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the plaintiff has been able to make out a case of cruelty but the learned court below did not appreciate the factual aspects of the case. It has been submitted that the marriage was never consummated which itself would amount to a cruel act on the part of the defendant. It has also been submitted that the defendant did not take any interest in the domestic chores and is a woman of volatile temperament and these facts have been supported by the witnesses in their evidence. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and have also perused the lower court records. 15. “Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the case of “Samar Ghosh Versus Jaya Ghosh” reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 some illustrative guidelines have been laid down from which mental cruelty can be discerned and which are as follows : “98. 15. “Cruelty has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the case of “Samar Ghosh Versus Jaya Ghosh” reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 some illustrative guidelines have been laid down from which mental cruelty can be discerned and which are as follows : “98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of “mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 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 sterilisation 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.” 16. The plaintiff as per the plaint and evidence of witnesses seems to have been agonized by the following circumstances : (a) Disinclination of the defendant towards having physical relationship with the plaintiff. (b) Not being interested and involved in doing domestic chores and, (c) Having an aggressive temperament and leaving the house without any information to the plaintiff. 17. The accusations noted above have been denied by the defendant and in fact such accusations appear to be vague. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are based on what has been disclosed to them by the plaintiff (P.W.1). The defendant in very categorical terms has expressed her desire to stay with the plaintiff and a suit u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a testament to the said desire. The plaintiff appears to be at the receiving end of a criminal case instituted by the defendant u/s 498A of the IPC and such factor would also denote that under compelling circumstances the defendant had to leave her matrimonial house. The plaintiff appears to be at the receiving end of a criminal case instituted by the defendant u/s 498A of the IPC and such factor would also denote that under compelling circumstances the defendant had to leave her matrimonial house. The accusations made by the plaintiff are not of such nature which would make it impossible for the plaintiff to continue with his marital relationship with the defendant. 18. The learned court below has rightly appreciated the factual and legal issues emanating in the present case while dismissing the suit preferred by the plaintiff. 19. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2020 passed by Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 691 of 2016 and, we accordingly dismiss this appeal. 20. Pending I.As., if any, are closed.