JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Hausihla Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Sushil Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Appellant-defendant-wife has assailed the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017, passed by the Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, in Marriage Petition No. 675 of 2011 (Sushil Kumar Bharti v. Smt. Aradhana Das), under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[the Act], dissolving the marriage between the parties. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Section 13 of the Act, against the defendant-appellant for dissolution of marriage asserting that he got married with defendant on 21.04.2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals in Shagun Palace, Tulsipur Kareli, Allahabad. 4. Appellant-defendant pressurized him to live separately from his family members, whereupon, the respondent-plaintiff explained and persuaded her that he has responsibility of his parent, brothers and sisters and he being the eldest son of his parent. Thus, he is not capable of living separately from his family. Appellant-defendant got annoyed and started quarreling and dishonouring the family members. After three / four months of his marriage, he took appellant-defendant to Gorakhpur i.e. place of his posting so that there may not be any dispute in the family. Whenever, he sent money from his salary to his parent and family members to meet their necessities, appellant-defendant objected and started quarreling. To pressurize the respondent, she said that she will not live with him if respondent-plaintiff gave money to his family members. She started quarreling without any valid cause. After some time, appellant got pregnant; to ensure good health and care of the appellant, respondent-plaintiff left appellant-defendant in the house of his parent but there also she did not stay. Respondent-plaintiff further asserted in his plaint that in ninth month of her pregnancy, she called her parents on phone and left the house of the respondent along with all her ornaments and jewellery and went to her maternal house. Ten days after, appellant-defendant was delivered off a male-child, in her maternal home, but it was not intimated to the respondent-plaintiff. When he came to know about the birth of the child after four to five days, he went to his Sasural and made entire payment of the hospital expenses. Appellant-defendant returned to his house on the condition that he would pay his entire salary to her. When he came to know about the birth of the child after four to five days, he went to his Sasural and made entire payment of the hospital expenses. Appellant-defendant returned to his house on the condition that he would pay his entire salary to her. She used to frequently quarrel with him and she talked to her parents and left for her maternal house without any reason in absence of the respondent or his family members. When respondent made a call to her, she clearly stated that he should not call further and she would talk to him in the Court, he tried to persuade her, but she threatened that she would recover a part of his salary in the Court. Respondent-plaintiff further stated in his plaint that appellant-defendant instituted a false case of domestic violence in the Court, wherein, plaintiff, his father, his brothers and his brother-in-law and one Chaman Lal were arrayed as party. It is further stated that in a suit filed by appellant-defendant, plaintiff deposited entire maintenance pursuant to the order of the Court. Thus, there has been no possibility of any compromise, defendant has been extending mental, physical and financial cruelty/harassment upon the respondent. On the ground of cruelty and desertion, plaintiff sought divorce from defendant-appellant. 5. Suit was duly contested by the appellant-defendant denying the allegations of the plaint. 6. Court below, after hearing the parties and examining the entire evidence on record, allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Act, dissolving the marriage between the two. 7. Being aggrieved, defendant-appellant filed the present appeal. 8. Marriage between both the parties is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the appellant-defendant is living separately in her maternal home along with the child. The respondent-plaintiff is an engineer. Institution of case under Section 498-A, 504, 506 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, and case under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (Aradhna Das v. Sushil Kumar Bharti and Others), by the appellant-defendant and the appellant-defendant separately living from her husband for some months after marriage is also not disputed. 9. While deciding the issue Nos. 1 and 2, Court below has noted that the defendant-appellant filed cases against the respondent-plaintiff under Dowry Prohibition Act, Domestic Violence Act, and complaint against the plaintiff with his department for harassment. 9. While deciding the issue Nos. 1 and 2, Court below has noted that the defendant-appellant filed cases against the respondent-plaintiff under Dowry Prohibition Act, Domestic Violence Act, and complaint against the plaintiff with his department for harassment. The marital relation between both the parties no longer survives, defendant-appellant attempted to harass the respondent-plaintiff and cause damage to his reputation by filing frivolous applications with the employer which tantamounts to cruelty. Court below decided the issues in favour of plaintiff. The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined under the Act. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 10. In Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105 , Supreme Court held as follows:- "4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse." 11. The cruelty has to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. The paramount considerations is as to whether the conduct of the party is such that it has become intolerable for the other party to suffer any longer and continue to live together has become impossible. 12. In GVN Kameshwara Rao Vs. The paramount considerations is as to whether the conduct of the party is such that it has become intolerable for the other party to suffer any longer and continue to live together has become impossible. 12. In GVN Kameshwara Rao Vs. G. Jabillia, (2002) 2 SCC 296 , the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "12. The Court has to come to a conclusion whether the acts committed by the counter-petitioner amount to cruelty, and it is to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the counter- petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the Court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter-petitioner. This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances." (V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs), AIR 1994 SC 710 .) 13. The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances. The Hindu Marriage Act does not define cruelty. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. 14. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the Supreme Court has enumerated instances of cruelty for guidance. The relevant portion for the purpose of the appeal is extracted : "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) ..... "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) ..... (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) ..... (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) ..... (ix) ..... (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) ..... (xii) ..... (xiii) ..... (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." (Refer: Vishwanath Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal). 15. 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." (Refer: Vishwanath Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal). 15. Despite that the joint family system has considerably weakened under the onslaught of development bringing about mobility of both men and women. The demand of share in the ancestral property, in particular by daughters, has further dented the joint family fabric. That apart, in Indian culture, it is absolutely normal that a son/daughter to maintain his/her parents in old age. The sole reason, the appellant wanted the respondent to separate from his family was to enjoy the income of the respondent. Normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents who are also dependent on his income. The wife must have some justifiable reason for insisting to live separately from the dependent in-laws. 16. In Narendra Versus K Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455 , the Supreme Court observed as follows : "A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in India culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the respondent wanted the appellant to be separated from the family-the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. ..... ..... In a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the respondent wife to constrain the appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of 'cruelty'." 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the entire record, the impugned judgment of the court below, we do not find any good case in favour of the appellant. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the entire record, the impugned judgment of the court below, we do not find any good case in favour of the appellant. Impugned judgment is well considered and well reasoned. We are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view from that taken by the trial court. No interference is warranted. For the reasons herein above, the appeal, having no legs to stand upon, fails and is accordingly dismissed.