JUDGMENT : Ritu Tagore, J. - Appellant-husband has come in appeal, challenging judgment dated 19.09.2018 passed by learned Principal District Judge. Family Court, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the `Family Court'), whereby petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') bearing petition No.48 (RBT) of 2015/2018, instituted on 18.11.2015/03.05.2018 titled Smt.Jyoti v. Dinesh filed by the respondent-wife has been allowed against the Appellant-husband. 2. The facts in brief are that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 09.11.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Bamla-II, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. It was their first marriage. The couple lived and cohabited as husband and wife at village Kalinga and a male child named Viren was born from the wedlock. 3. It is pleaded by respondent-wife that at the time of their marriage appellant-husband was serving as Assistant Manager with a private company at Gurugram. Their marriage was performed in a decent manner; ample dowry including motorcycle and computer were given but appellant-husband and his family members were not satisfied and soon started harassing her for more dowry. 4. After few months of their marriage, appellant-husband left his job and began pressurizing respondent-wife by demanding money from her parents on the pretext of using it to find a job. However, he did not do so, rather squandered away the money and fell into bad influence and started consuming liquor. Respondent-wife brought all these facts to the notice of her parents, who in order to save her marriage and keep appellant-husband away from bad society, got constructed a two-room house on 110 square yards plot in the name of respondent-wife near Hanuman Pyau, Bhiwani. Regardless, appellant-husband continued with his bad habits of drinking and borrowing money from others and constant nudging of creditors made her life miserable and there was no positive change in the conduct of appellant-husband towards her. 5. Respondent-wife further pleaded that on 16.06.2012, theft was committed in their house, she suffered depression on account thereof and remained hospitalized but appellant-husband did not take care of her and continued mistreating her. Appellant was jailed for quarrelling with some individuals and was released by her parents, and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was also given to appellant-husband on his demand by her parents for establishing business. Yet again, he wasted all that money in consuming liquor and discharging other loan liabilities. Appellant was jailed for quarrelling with some individuals and was released by her parents, and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was also given to appellant-husband on his demand by her parents for establishing business. Yet again, he wasted all that money in consuming liquor and discharging other loan liabilities. Appellant-husband did not mend his behavior towards her at all and continued subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty. On 20.08.2014, appellant-husband after beating her mercilessly, ousted her and her child from matrimonial home leading her to file a divorce petition. On assurance given to her by appellant-husband to keep her nicely by executing an affidavit dated 10.11.2015 in that regard, she withdrew the said divorce petition. Later on, appellant resiled from his undertaking and again maltreated her by beating and threatening to kill her if his demand for Rs.1,00,000/- and a scooter was not fulfilled. He refused to keep her with him and since then she has been residing with her parents along with her child. Respondent-wife pleaded that appellant has caused immense cruelty and mental suffering to her as detailed, and it is not safe for her to live and continue her matrimony alliance with him. She has neither condoned acts of cruelty of appellant, nor there is any collusion between the parties in seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 6. Appellant-husband appeared in response to the notice and filed written statement with preliminary objections with respect to locus standi, maintainability, estoppel etc. contending that cruelty and desertion was not on his part; the shoe is rather on the other foot. Appellant pleaded that he found respondent-wife to be an arrogant lady with a short temper, who fights over trivial matters. He further averred that she was never sincere in performing her matrimonial obligations or household chores and often left the matrimonial home on her whims and fancies and he brought her back several times with the intervention of respectables. He further averred that respondent-wife never respected him and remained under the influence of her parents. He categorically denied beating the petitioner or making any demand for dowry or money from her. It is claimed that respondent-wife has concocted a false story. In fact, respondent has withdrawn from his society without any just or reasonable cause and has started living in her parental home by refusing to return to her matrimonial home. He categorically denied beating the petitioner or making any demand for dowry or money from her. It is claimed that respondent-wife has concocted a false story. In fact, respondent has withdrawn from his society without any just or reasonable cause and has started living in her parental home by refusing to return to her matrimonial home. He submitted that he is still ready and willing to cohabit with her and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Earnest efforts for conciliation and amicable settlement between the parties were made but the same did not yield any result. 8. Pendente lite maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month along with litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- were awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2017. 9. As per pleadings of the parties, trial proceeded on the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce from the respondent on the grounds alleged in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi or cause of action to file present petition? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner is stopped from filing the present petition by her own act and conduct? OPR 4. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Relief 10. To support her version, respondent-wife appeared as PW1 and reiterated the version of the petition in her affidavit PW1/A, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty, both mentally and physically at the hands of the appellant-husband for demand of dowry and money and having to put up with his bad behavior of regular beating and excessive drinking which made it impossible for her to continue living in the matrimonial home, especially when his above said illegal demands were not fulfilled. She deposed that she previously also filed a divorce petition No.822 of 2014 due to cruel behavior of appellant but had withdrawn the same on assurance given by the husband to maintain her in the matrimonial home with respect and dignity and live with her without causing any domestic violence against her. She deposed that appellant however, did not mend his ways and continued to inflict atrocities upon her and shunted her out from the matrimonial home with a clear warning to bring money, lest she would be killed. She deposed that appellant however, did not mend his ways and continued to inflict atrocities upon her and shunted her out from the matrimonial home with a clear warning to bring money, lest she would be killed. She deposed that appellant has committed the offence of matrimonial cruelty against her and she apprehends threat to her life and limb if she remains in his society and within the bond of matrimony. Thus constrained she filed the divorce petition. She also deposed that she has not condoned the cruel acts of the appellant as perpetuated against her nor has she filed the petition in collusion with him and prayed for dissolution of marriage as she found no possibility of cohabiting with him in the future due to circumstances created by him. Petitioner also tendered on record the documents affidavit dated 19.08.2015 (Mark-A), copy of order dated 10.11.2015 (Mark-B) passed in petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of case No.822 of 2014 where under respondent-wife withdrew her petition on the basis of compromise arrived with her husband, mortgage deed dated 22.10.2013 (Mark-C) executed by respondent-wife, document of redemption of mortgage deed dated 12.01.2015 (Mark-D). 11. Shri Ramesh Kumar son of Jeet Ram (PW2) father of respondent-wife, in his affidavit PW2. A supported the entire version of the petition by deposing that appellant-husband committed the matrimonial offence of cruelty qua his daughter. 12. Appellant-husband appeared as RW1 and in his affidavit RW1/A stated his version as set-out in his written statement and denied having caused any cruelty, either mental or physical or demanded any money, as alleged by respondent-wife. On the contrary, he deposed that respondent did not perform her matrimonial duties, misbehaved with him, always remained under the influence of her parents and would leave her matrimonial home without any cause. He stated that each time she was brought back with the intervention of respectables of the society but she did not mend her ways and without any sufficient cause or reason on 19.07.2015, left the matrimonial home. He further stated that he is still ready and willing to live with her and asserted that she has filed a false case against him. However, in cross-examination he admitted that earlier also respondent had filed a divorce petition against him but the same was withdrawn on account of compromise between them. 13. He further stated that he is still ready and willing to live with her and asserted that she has filed a false case against him. However, in cross-examination he admitted that earlier also respondent had filed a divorce petition against him but the same was withdrawn on account of compromise between them. 13. Defence of the respondent was struck off on 02.08.2018 on account of non-payment of arrears of maintenance. After assessing the evidence, learned Family Court came to conclude that respondent-wife was subjected to cruelty by appellant-husband thereby, allowed the petition in her favour and dissolved the marriage between the parties. 14. Being dissatisfied with the findings of learned Family Court, respondent-husband preferred the instant appeal. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book and record. 16. Learned counsel for appellant-husband contended that allegations of cruelty are totally vague and are not supported by any cogent evidence. He further submits that the findings of learned Family Court are perverse and are not based on any evidence. It is prayed that impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2018 be set aside and petition filed by the wife seeking divorce be dismissed. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-wife stated that sufficient evidence has been brought on record to prove mental and physical cruelty committed by the appellant. Affidavit dated 19.08.2015 (Mark-A) and admission of appellant about filing of divorce petition by respondent-wife earlier as well leaves no room for doubt, supporting allegations of matrimonial cruelty meted out by the appellant. Further, learned counsel stated that non-payment of maintenance by husband to wife and minor child amounts to cruelty towards them by referring to authority titled `Beant Kaur v. Gurwinder Singh' 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 223 and `Davinder Singh v. Kulwinder Kaur' 2014(1) PLR 503 . wherein it was held that non-payment of maintenance amount during pendency of proceedings by the husband amounts to cruelty. 18. The term `cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. It varies from case to case. Further, it is not possible to give precise definition of what would constitute cruelty in marriage. To determine the degree of cruelty allegedly inflicted upon spouse, same would have to be inferred from the consequences of the act and not from the act alone. Cruelty is a course of conduct which can adversely affect the other spouse. Further, it is not possible to give precise definition of what would constitute cruelty in marriage. To determine the degree of cruelty allegedly inflicted upon spouse, same would have to be inferred from the consequences of the act and not from the act alone. Cruelty is a course of conduct which can adversely affect the other spouse. Though, no uniform yardstick can be laid down for construing cruelty. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 2007(4) SCC 511 summed up the concept of mental cruelty by setting out illustrative cases as under:- "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 cruelly. (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. 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. (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." 19. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, 2002(13) RCR (Civil) 529 had very elaborately analyzed the expression cruelty as a ground of divorce under the Act. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." 19. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, 2002(13) RCR (Civil) 529 had very elaborately analyzed the expression cruelty as a ground of divorce under the Act. The relevant portion thereof reads thus:- "Under the statutory provision cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty. The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act. Probably, the Legislature has advisedly refrained from making any attempt at giving a comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover all cases, realising the danger in making such attempt. The accepted legal meaning in England as also in India of this expression, which is rather difficult to define, had been conduct of such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental), or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger, x x x x x x x x x x x x 21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. " 20. Adverting to the facts of present case, it emerges from the evidence on record that relationship between the parties was not cordial since nearly the beginning of their marriage. Appellant admitted that earlier also a petition for divorce was filed by respondent-wife. Respondent-wife too categorically deposed that she had filed a petition bearing No.822 of 2014 against appellant on the ground of cruelty, but had withdrawn it on assurance given by way of his affidavit (Mark-A) that he will live with her with love and dignity but he failed to honour his promise and again subjected her to atrocities-mental and physical. The fact that respondent-wife is not living and cohabiting with appellant and is rather residing at her parental home along with her minor son is also not disputed by the appellant-husband. Plea of appellant-husband that respondent-wife has not portrayed a true version of their matrimonial relations and has made false allegations against his conduct, which are not supported by any evidence, facts and circumstances, therefore, is not acceptable. Plea of appellant-husband that respondent-wife has not portrayed a true version of their matrimonial relations and has made false allegations against his conduct, which are not supported by any evidence, facts and circumstances, therefore, is not acceptable. Had the respondent-wife been living happily in the company of appellant with respect, love and care, she would not have left his society or the matrimonial home. No lady much less an Indian women with a minor child would leave matrimonial home and conjugal umbrella of her husband if she is given due love and care by her partner. There is nothing on record which casts a cloud over the credibility of PW1, the wife and PW2, her father who have deposed categorically in respect to the averments in the petition. Appellant was unable to elicit anything in his favour in their cross-examination. 21. The respondent-wife has placed on record affidavit dated 19.08.2015 (Mark-A) executed by appellant-husband, contents of which have clinched the issue in favour of the wife and has supplemented her allegations of cruelty at the hand of appellant-husband. In the said affidavit, appellant specifically gave an undertaking that in future, he will refrain from consuming liquor, would do some labour work to maintain his family and child and would also not indulge in the company of bad people. Above material submissions have substantiated the version of respondent-wife that appellant-husband was not doing any work and used to pressurize her and her parents to give him money. Copy of mortgage deed (Mark-C) further shows that respondent had mortgaged the house fora sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Aforesaid document also prove the version of respondent that she had given Rs.2,50,000/- to appellant for doing some business but he wasted the money on drinking and discharging his loan liabilities. 22. Counsel for appellant-husband contended that statement of PW1 in absence of medical record does not lead any credence to allegations of her being subjected to physical cruelty. This contention is rejected being devoid of any merit because in matrimonial disputes, it has been observed that more often than not a wife or her family members try to solve matrimonial disputes at their own level. Collecting documentary evidence i.e. medical records etc. may be last thing on anyone's mind because endeavour in such cases is to allow the parties to sit together and resolve their differences. So non-tendering or absence of medical evidence etc. Collecting documentary evidence i.e. medical records etc. may be last thing on anyone's mind because endeavour in such cases is to allow the parties to sit together and resolve their differences. So non-tendering or absence of medical evidence etc. in the given factual matrix cannot lead to an adverse inference against the respondent-wife or render her oral version unworthy of credence. In matrimonial matters, immediate family members, including father, mother, brother or sister are the best witnesses, who can speak on the troubled matters simmering in the family. As noted above, father of the respondent has come forward and supported each allegation with respect to cruel conduct meted out by appellant upon respondent-wife. There is nothing on record to discredit the version of respondent-wife and her father. 23. To the contrary, defence of appellant-husband has since been struck off his version cannot be taken into consideration at all. Even otherwise, his sole statement failed to rebut the version of respondent-wife and substantiate his version. Rather, adverting to his conduct of nonpayment of maintenance pendente lite to wife and the minor children during the pendency of the petition, absolve the Court from the obligation to take into account assertions or averments so made by him to counter the allegations made by the respondent-wife. Non-payment of maintenance pendente lite has to be construed as an incident of cruelty caused by the appellant upon the respondent-wife. This High Court in case of Rai Rani v. Karam Singh' 2015(1) HLR 195 construed non-payment of maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Act as cruelty to wife. Similarly, in Beant Kaur (supra), the husband did not make payment of maintenance pendente lite as ordered by the Court under Section 24 of the Act. Defence set up by husband-appellant was struck off and the appeal was allowed as the act of respondent-husband in not making payment towards maintenance pendente lite was treated to be an act of cruelty. It was held that leaving the wife in penury by the husband without offering anything to sustain in life, despite order from the Court amounts to cruelty. 24. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances above, we are of the considered opinion that findings recorded by learned Family Court. Bhiwani are based on sound appreciation of evidence and call for no interference. 25. No other argument has been addressed. 26. 24. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances above, we are of the considered opinion that findings recorded by learned Family Court. Bhiwani are based on sound appreciation of evidence and call for no interference. 25. No other argument has been addressed. 26. Present appeal is dismissed and impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, vide which marriage between the parties was dissolved, by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is thus upheld. 27. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.