JUDGEMENT : SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-wife under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.157-A/2016, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act, 1955’) preferred by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage and granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent moved an application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage which was solemnized on 01.05.2015. It was stated in the application that after 15 days of their marriage, the appellant went of her own to her parent’s house and after one week came back to her matrimonial house. She has stated that she is intending to prepare for the Railway Recruitment exam and to join the coaching class, she had to reside in hostel at Bhilai. To this, parents of the respondent/husband have suggested that she can reside at her parents’ house and once in a week she can come to her matrimonial home. Appellant/wife agreed to the same but after sometime she used to come either once in a week or two and that she would not do the domestic work or prepare food. She has stated that she wants to reside in a pucca house. It has been stated by the husband/respondent that wife is depriving him of the fruits of family life. The respondent is a farmer and therefore the appellant/wife was neglecting him and residing at her parent’s house. The appellant/wife due to her stubbornness resided at Bhilai and joined the coaching classes and after sometime she never visited her matrimonial house. It is stated that whenever she used to visit her matrimonial house, her behaviour with the respondent and his parents was rude. She used to threaten them to falsely implicate in any criminal case. Thereafter, a society meeting was also called for compromise between them but she left to her parent’s house to appear in the exam and thereafter lodged a false complaint against the respondent and his family members. She used to threaten them to falsely implicate in any criminal case. Thereafter, a society meeting was also called for compromise between them but she left to her parent’s house to appear in the exam and thereafter lodged a false complaint against the respondent and his family members. The respondent again called for a social meeting at Dongargarh but she was not ready to reside with the respondent and has compelled him for dissolution of marriage to which the society had given three months time, but on 12.11.2015, she went to her parent’s house. The respondent made a lot of efforts to bring back his wife to live a peaceful life, which was denied by the appellant-wife. In these circumstances, the respondent has pleaded that since the appellant/wife is not willing to reside with him, the decree of divorce may be granted to him. 3. In reply to the allegation, the wife contended that she was subjected to torture for bringing less dowry and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motor cycle. She has alleged that if she will bring the same then she will be permitted to join the coaching for railway recruitment exam. Appellant/wife has stated that the financial condition of her father is not as such to fulfill the demand and therefore the husband left her in her parent’s house. Thereafter on 23.01.2016, appellant/wife lodged a written complaint at police station Somni, Rajnandgaon. Father of the appellant called for a social meeting in the village but the husband and his family members denied to take the appellant/wife along with them to resume the matrimonial ties. 4. On the basis of averments made by the parties, issues were framed and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned family Court framed issues of cruelty and desertion and the finding was held proved resulting into dissolution of the divorce petition. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the law. It is contended that the Family Court has erred in granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent without proving cruelty. He submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that lodging of FIR by wife do not come within the purview of cruelty. It is contended that the Family Court has erred in granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent without proving cruelty. He submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that lodging of FIR by wife do not come within the purview of cruelty. He submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant/wife is ever ready and willing to reside with the respondent and she does not want to desert her husband and wants to perform the matrimonial obligations. It is submitted that the learned Family Court instead of granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties, should have made efforts to restitution the conjugal rights between the appellant and respondent. It is further submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has not filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights and thus has committed gave error of law in allowing the application in favour of the respondent/husband. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the respondent has proved the factum of cruelty and desertion and the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. In order to find out the cruelty apart from a physical cruelty, mental cruelty has been defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh, (2007) SCC 511 which are reproduced herein below:- “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. (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. (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. (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. (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.” 9. The impugned decision of the family court against the appellant-wife and in favor of the respondent-husband is based on cruelty, therefore, the present case has to be seen in the light of cruelty defined in the above judgment. 10. The Family Court has examined village Kotwar of village Makkatola Nathia Bai (PW/1), neighbor Smt. Sunita Verma as (PW/2), the respondent-husband Bhojdev Markande (PW/3) and father of the respondent Agrahit Das Markande as (PW/4) on behalf of the respondent-husband’s side. On the other hand, the statement of the appellant-wife Smt. Devki Markande (DW/1) and her father Gangaram Bandhe (DW/2) have been recorded. The witnesses of both the parties have supported their evidence affidavits submitted under Order 18 Rule 04 Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, instead of re-mentioning the entire evidence which will unnecessarily make the decision cumbersome, it would be appropriate to mention only the main facts that came in the evidence of both the parties. 11. The wife Smt Devki Markande (DW/1) in her cross-examination has admitted that her maternal home is in village Bagatola which is three kilometers away from the National Highway. Her in-laws house is in village Makkatola which is a rural area. 11. The wife Smt Devki Markande (DW/1) in her cross-examination has admitted that her maternal home is in village Bagatola which is three kilometers away from the National Highway. Her in-laws house is in village Makkatola which is a rural area. She has clearly admitted in paragraph-15 of her cross-examination that her marriage took place on 01/05/2015 and since 12/11/2015, she was residing in her maternal house. Thus, it is clear that after about six months of her marriage, appellant-wife Smt. Devki Markande (DW/1) was residing in her maternal house. The judgment in question was passed on 03/05/2019. Till the decision she had lived in her maternal home which is about three and a half years. And now, she has completed about seven and a half years residing in her maternal house. Gangaram Bandhe (DW/2), father of wife Smt. Devki Markande (DW/1) has also admitted in paragraph-14 of his cross-examination that after about six months of marriage of Devki Markande (DW/1), she was residing with him in her maternal home. 12. Appellant-wife Smt. Devki Markande (DW/1) has admitted in Para-17 of her cross-examination that during the pendency of the case, respondenthusband Bhojdev Markande and his family had come to village Bagatola to bring her back with them. Her father Gangaram Bandhe (DW/2) has also admitted that during the court counseling, his son-in-law Bhojdev Markande and his brother-in-law etc. had come to bring back his daughter. In this way, both the daughter and the father have admitted the fact that husband Bhojdev Markande has not only tried to keep the wife with him, but he and his family members along with villagers had gone to in-laws house to bring back the appellant-wife Devki Markande. 13. Now the evidence of both the parties will have to be evaluated on the basis of the above admission that whether it was appropriate or not for the appellant-wife to reside in her maternal house after six months of marriage?. 14. Respondent-husband Bhojdev Markande, on being suggested by the wife's side, himself has admitted that at the time of marriage, they had agreed that if appellant-wife Devki wanted to study and get a job, would get her done. It was also suggested to the respondent-husband by appellant-wife Mrs. 14. Respondent-husband Bhojdev Markande, on being suggested by the wife's side, himself has admitted that at the time of marriage, they had agreed that if appellant-wife Devki wanted to study and get a job, would get her done. It was also suggested to the respondent-husband by appellant-wife Mrs. Devki Markande that there had never been any fight between them and the husband used to drop his wife Devki at Dongargarh railway station so that Devki could continue her studies in Bhilai and this process continued for fifteen days. This suggestion has been admitted by respondent-husband Bhojdev. On the suggestion of the appellant’s party, respondent-husband Bhojdev has also told that his village is twelve kilometers away from Dongargarh where he used to go to drop appellant-wife Devki which also involved expenses. He has denied the suggestion that he demanded Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) and a motor cycle in dowry for the same expenses. He has denied the suggestion that he had refused to keep the appellant-wife. 15. The statement of respondent-husband Bhojdev is corroborated by his father by Agrahit Das Markande (PW/4), Village Kotwar Nathia Bai (PW/1) and Neighbor Mrs. Sunita Verma (PW/2). 16. On the other hand, looking at the evidence of the appellant-wife’s side, the appellant-wife herself has corroborated her pleas in evidence. She in her cross-examination has denied the suggestion that after fifteen days of marriage she had come alone to the maternal home without informing to anyone. She has admitted the fact that she was doing coaching in Bhilai for the examination. She also has admitted that she had not lodged any complaint with the society or the police station regarding being evicted from the house. She further admitted that at present she is working as Employment Assistant in village Bagatola and presently she is studying M.A. Sociology. She has not produced any copy or report made by her to the Police Station regarding dowry or harassment. In such a case, while the respondent-husband has been suggested by the wife herself in her evidence that the wife could do her coaching class in Bhilai and for this reason the husband Bhojdev used to drop her on a motor cycle and go to the Dongargarh railway station in the morning, it does not shows that Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) or a motor cycle had been demanded by the husband's side. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) or a motor cycle had been demanded by the husband's side. However, this report has been told to be reported on behalf of the wife in the year 2016-17, while the appellant-wife Devki had been residing in her maternal house since the month of November, 2015, therefore, the allegation of the wife's side that the husband was harassing her or demanded dowry from her side seems baseless. 17. Gangaram Bandhe, father of appellant-wife Devki Markande, has narrated that he is not aware of the salary which his daughter Devki gets for working as an Employment Assistant. He has also said that while doing coaching, her daughter Devki had asked to go to her in-laws' house once in a week. He has also admitted that his daughter Devki is more educated than his son-in-law Bhojdev. He has also admitted that his son-in-law Bhojdev is doing agriculture work and resides in a kuccha house. He also admitted that he has animals like cow. That raw house has to be plastered. His daughter Devki and he himself has rejected the suggestion that appellant-wife Devki may have refused to develop physical relationship with respondent-husband Bhojdev on the grounds that it would spoil Devki's figure. 18. On behalf of the appellant-wife’s side, it has been said that during the court counseling the wife was ready to live together but husband Bhojdev refused to kept her with him and this fact came in the proceedings of the mediator appointed by the court. In this context, the letter sent by the Mediation Centre, Rajnandgaon to the Court has been placed as Exhibit- D1C and the note-sheet written by the appointed Mediator has been placed as Exhibit-D2C wherein, it is specifically mentioned in the order letter dated 17/04/2017, the wife was ready to live together but the husband refused to keep her with him. Saying something during counseling or mediation and actually doing it are two different things. Wife Devki and her father Gangaram Bandhe have admitted that after November, 2015, the appellant wife Devki has not gone to her in-laws house. Both have admitted the suggestion of the husband's side that during the court counseling, the husband Bhojdev along with his father and social people had come to his maternal home Bagatola to take wife Devki, but it has not been clarified why she did not go with him. 19. Both have admitted the suggestion of the husband's side that during the court counseling, the husband Bhojdev along with his father and social people had come to his maternal home Bagatola to take wife Devki, but it has not been clarified why she did not go with him. 19. In this situation, it is being reflected that there is some or the other truth in the allegation made against the wife by the husband in his pleading. The husband is an agriculturist from a rural environment, while the wife Mrs. Devki Markande is more educated than him and is now employed as well. It has been admitted by both the parties that the husband used to go in the morning to drop his wife on his motorcycle at Railway Station for her studies. If the husband had any feeling of harassing the wife or demanding dowry, then he would not have cooperated in this way in coaching the wife for her studies or job. The facts that wife living in maternal house for a long time; husband being less educated and belongs from rural environment; wife reporting a false complaint of dowry and harassment against husband while living in maternal house; refusing to develop physical relationship by the wife stating that this will spoil her figure; despite the social meeting and many efforts made by the husband and his family members to bring her back, and refusal of wife not going with the husband, show that the husband Bhojdev wanted to keep the appellant-wife with him, but the wife Mrs. Devki kept neglecting her husband. 20. For the above reasons, the allegation of the husband's side appears more reasonable, believable and correct that the wife did not like the husband's rural environment and being an agriculturist. That's why she stayed at her in-laws house for a short time after marriage, and thereafter with an intention of improving her career, she started putting conditions on her husband and his family that she would come to her in-laws house once in a week. Apart from all this, she also refused to develop physical relationship with her husband due to rural environment. Even in the social meetings, her behavior was such that she neglected her husband. Despite her husband's efforts, she did not agree to come to her in-laws' house. Apart from all this, she also refused to develop physical relationship with her husband due to rural environment. Even in the social meetings, her behavior was such that she neglected her husband. Despite her husband's efforts, she did not agree to come to her in-laws' house. Thus, prior to the judgment in question, she has been residing separately from her husband in her parental home for about three and a half years without sufficient reason, which is not only a condition of abandonment, but the entire evidence shows that the wife Devki has not performed her duties in the marital status. She has behaved negligently with her husband and thus has caused mental cruelty to her husband Bhojdev. 21. Looking to the above evidence, it is apparent that the husband-respondent and his family members had made many efforts and tried to convince the wife to come back to the matrimonial home, but all his diligent efforts met with miserable failure. 22. For the reasons and evidence available on record, we find that the arguments raised by the appellant-wife against the decree of divorce passed by the family court on the ground of cruelty, are not acceptable in the present matter and no interference is required in the decision passed by the Family Court. 23. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant/wife is dismissed.