JUDGMENT : Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with dismissal of his suit for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act of 1955) vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 and 16.08.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No.25 of 2023. 3. The factual background of the case is that appellant was married with respondent in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 15.02.2013 at Hotel Maurya, Patna (State of Bihar). It is alleged that father of the respondent assured to the family members of the appellant that the respondent is a very educated, cultured and sober girl, who is able to look after all family affairs and will be proved to be an ideal wife, daughter-in-law in the family of appellant. Therefore, the marriage was settled and father of respondent was not able to bear the huge expenses of the marriage and desired to solemnize in a temple but the appellant’s family took responsibility of meeting the marriage expenses in a hotel bearing considerable portion of the expenses. It is further stated that the appellant’s family is a joint family consisting with his father and uncle who are living in jointness along with all family members in mess and residence. The father of appellant was in job of United Bank of India and was mostly posted away from Patna and all the family affairs were undertaken by the uncle of petitioner as a guardian of the joint family and spread his love and affection to the appellant, his sister as well as his own children. It is alleged that just after the marriage and joining the matrimonial home, the conduct and behavior of the respondent was found unexpected and derogatory to the concept of joint family. It is alleged that just after the marriage and joining the matrimonial home, the conduct and behavior of the respondent was found unexpected and derogatory to the concept of joint family. She was not participating in the household affairs rather showed the attitude of aggression, stubbornness and habit to avail undue freedom from guardianship and due to these reasons the respondent was always uncomfortable in the family atmosphere of the appellant and frequently used to quarrel with the appellant, his mother as well as uncle without any sense of respect to them. The respondent was also making imputations against the character of uncle of the appellant and tried to spread enmity in the joint family and hatred against the uncle and aunt of the appellant. She also ignored the appellant and was not desirous to fulfill her conjugal obligations. She also insisted upon family for partition from the uncle of the appellant. It is alleged that due to aggressive and rude behaviour of the respondent and insisting for partition between beloved brothers of the father of appellant, the appellant’s father came under extreme depression. The appellant continued to pursue the respondent to mend herself and respect to every family member but no positive change in her behaviour took place and under state of affairs both were blessed with a son on 23.01.2015. The respondent continued to insist for partition to be effected in between the appellant and his uncle’s family then appellant also attempted to take help of respondent’s parents but instead of taking any step to mend their daughter’s behaviour, the parents of respondent also instigated her through their ill advice to hold control over every family member. It is also alleged that on the occasion of birth of first son, respondent’s mother visited to Patna and was welcome by the appellant and his family members where she stayed about 2-3 days. In this interval, parents of appellant had gone to attend a marriage function out of Patna and taking advantage of absence of the appellant’s parents, the respondent and her mother started quarrelling with uncle and aunt of the appellant abusing them in filthy language which was also heard by the adjacent neighbours causing impression of humiliation and shame in the family. The respondent also extends threat to the appellant and his parents that if partition is not affected, she will proceed to her maternal home and will not come back unless there is partition between appellant’s uncle and father. The appellant’s parents made their efforts to persuade the respondent for leaving her obstinacy and stubbornness, but all went in vain and they succumbed with very heavy heart before the respondent which led in partition between appellant’s father and uncle on 06.03.2015 on the occasion of festival of Holi. Thereafter, health of the father of appellant started deteriorating and he was arrested with the disease of Cancer but the respondent instead of serving her father-in-law during illness went to her parental home at Hazaribagh along with the child and stayed there. When she was asked to come back and join the company of the appellant, she started pressurizing the appellant to get transfer of his house in her name. The appellant along with his mother, sister, brother-in-law went to Hazaribag and requested for “Bidai” of respondent but she did not return rather they were humiliated at the instance of respondent and her parents. In the month of July 2016, the respondent joined a job in a school at Hazaribagh and did not even come to look after the ailing father of the appellant. It is further alleged that the father of the appellant took his last breath on 03.03.2019. Hearing about the message of death of the appellant’s father, the respondent instead of expressing any feeling of sorrow stoutly raised her demand to get the family house transferred in her name or to purchase a new flat. In the meantime, the second son of the appellant was also born on 05.03.2020. It is further alleged that the appellant somehow got some recording of the conversation of the respondent with her father wherein her father had advised the respondent to contact known high ups and get her in-laws person beaten for teaching a lesson to them and to agree to accept her demand. The appellant on getting knowledge of the same was very much shocked and upset. It is further alleged that the appellant had also caught the respondent having an extramarital relationship with one Gagan and their bold and exposed conversation itself disclosed the extramarital relationship between them. The appellant on getting knowledge of the same was very much shocked and upset. It is further alleged that the appellant had also caught the respondent having an extramarital relationship with one Gagan and their bold and exposed conversation itself disclosed the extramarital relationship between them. When the appellant confronted the respondent for the said fact and his knowledge about the same then she conceded and assured the appellant not to continue any relationship with the said man but she continued in said illicit relationship and had broken the trust of the appellant. The appellant was completely unable to continue in the matrimonial tie with the respondent, but was worried about his children. Hence, he was badly sandwiched in that situation. The appellant in the interest of children, even without condoning the cruelty of the respondent, did try to continue the relationship with the respondent unwillingly. It is further alleged that on 13.11.2020, since morning, the respondent was making a hue and cry at house, despite the request of the appellant and his mother not to do such act as that was an auspicious day of ‘Dhanteras’. The respondent after making hue and cry scolded and assaulted appellant’s mother and thereafter about 01:30 pm, she left the house with both the children without disclosing about her whereabouts. The appellant searched about her and also informed to local police station but no clue of his wife and children was found. On 15.11.2020, the respondent came to the appellant’s house along with brother, brother’s wife, a male friend and one lady officer from local police station and collected her belongings and despite appellant’s request to stay at matrimonial home, she did not agree to stay and threatened to take divorce from the appellant. She also kept the children with her, under such situation, the appellant gave a cheque of Rs.1 Lakh to the respondent for the welfare of children. It is further stated that the appellant also filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but in the meanwhile, the respondent had instituted a criminal case against the appellant. Therefore, he withdrew the said case. He also endeavoured to take all measures for reconciliation but all in vain due to extreme cruel behaviour of the respondent. Therefore, he withdrew the said case. He also endeavoured to take all measures for reconciliation but all in vain due to extreme cruel behaviour of the respondent. Therefore, it is not possible for the appellant to continue conjugal rights and obligations and matrimonial tie with his wife (Respondent). Hence, the case for grant of decree of divorce has been instituted on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. Upon service of summons, respondent appeared and filed her written statement. She has denied all the allegations levelled against her in the petition for divorce under parawise comment and taken specific plea that present divorce case has been instituted by the appellant as a counter blast to the complaint case filed by the respondent in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh being complaint Case No.1022 of 2021 for the offences under Section 354, 498A, 323, 341, 384 and 120B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is still pending. She has totally denied any act of atrocity causing any mental or physical cruelty to appellant or his family members. She has also stated that just after solemnization of marriage, the respondent started residing at her matrimonial home at Telegraph Colony Kidwaipuri, Patna. She has denied that the cost of hotel was born by father of the appellant rather it was an arranged marriage and total Rs.25 Lakhs cost was incurred by the father of the respondent out of which Rs.12 Lakhs cash and Rs.7 Lakh’s jewelries were presented apart from other household articles like T.V., A.C., Treadmill, etc. The respondent lived peacefully for one year then she noticed that the appellant has no income of his own and was totally dependent upon his uncle Dilip Kumar Mehra. Hence, he was absolutely under influence of his uncle. The uncle of the appellant used to hate the respondent and on his instigation, the appellant used to assault her and asked to bring Rs.20 Lakhs as additional dowry from her parents otherwise she would be killed. She expressed inability of her parents to fulfill the aforesaid demand. Thereafter, the respondent was being assaulted by her husband on instigation of his uncle and aunt. In order to meet her own expenses, she joined a school namely Maepple Beer School, Kidwaipuri as a Teacher. She expressed inability of her parents to fulfill the aforesaid demand. Thereafter, the respondent was being assaulted by her husband on instigation of his uncle and aunt. In order to meet her own expenses, she joined a school namely Maepple Beer School, Kidwaipuri as a Teacher. Upon this the uncle and aunt of the appellant became enraged and tried to oust the respondent from matrimonial home. In the meantime, out of wedlock with the appellant, the respondent gave birth of two children on 23.01.2015 and 05.03.2020 respectively. She has further pleaded that the uncle of the appellant always kept his evil eyes on her. On 12.11.2020, when respondent was alone in her house closing the door of her room, the uncle of appellant knocked the door and asked to open the door, then the respondent knowing his evil intention did not open the door, then he became furious and returned giving threatening to her. The respondent complained the above act of her uncle-in-law to her mother-in-law but she also did not pay any heed rather suggested her to keep distance from uncle-in-law. Again on 13.11.2020, on instigation of his uncle, the appellant badly assaulted the respondent any how she along with her children, with a view to save her life, fled away from there by auto-rickshaw and went to her school, where she met with Head Mistress namely Priya Lal Madam, thereafter, she went to police station and returned to her sasural with a lady police constable. The respondent was sustaining ill-treatment and torture in various ways at the hands of her husband, his uncle and mother-in-law which compelled her to live at her parental home. On 16.02.2021, the appellant and his family members visited to parental home of the respondent where also the appellant misbehaved and abused her demanding Rs.20 Lakhs for keeping her at matrimonial home. Thereafter, a complaint case was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag. As a counterblast, this divorce case was filed at Family Court, Patna and on application of respondent before the Supreme Court of India, the said matrimonial suit was transferred to the Family Court, Hazaribag. This divorce petition was filed by the petitioner in collusion with his uncle and aunt who have greedy eyes to the ancestral properties of her father-in-law and taking under influence to the petitioner pressurizing the respondent. This divorce petition was filed by the petitioner in collusion with his uncle and aunt who have greedy eyes to the ancestral properties of her father-in-law and taking under influence to the petitioner pressurizing the respondent. The plea of insistence upon partition and purchase of flat or transfer of house in favour of respondent is absolutely false and fabricated story. The respondent had no grievance in the joint family system of the appellant. The respondent is an educated lady and due to her full support at her matrimonial home and cordial atmosphere, she has been blessed with two children. During second time pregnancy, she was sent to her maternal home for delivery of second child and after death of father-in-law on 03.03.2019, the second child was born on 05.03.2020 and in the meantime for the sake of monetary support, she joined a job in a school and on insistence of appellant himself, she did not give up her job. The appellant has not only levelled bald and baseless imputations against the respondent but also made imputation against her chastity without any reasonable and probable cause which itself amounts to cruelty against the respondent. Admittedly, the partition of her father-in-law from his own brother took place in the year 2015 itself. Therefore, there was no occasion to insist upon partition of the family. The grounds taken by the appellant for getting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and false plea of adultery are purposely pleaded to get rid from the matrimonial responsibility and the maintenance of children. The true and real fact is that due to atrocities and cruelties of the petitioner and his family members, the respondent took shelter with her children in the house of her Mausi in Dhindori (Madhya Pradesh). She also filed a Maintenance Case No.40 of 2020 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhindori (M.P.). She has further pleaded that due to continuous atrocities and cruelty coupled with demand of additional dowry, the respondent has also filed a complaint Case No.1022 of 2021 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag. The appellant with an oblique motive to screen himself from his own wrongs and misdeeds wilfully withdrew the earlier suit filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights and instituted this false and fabricated case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and character assassination of the respondent. The appellant with an oblique motive to screen himself from his own wrongs and misdeeds wilfully withdrew the earlier suit filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights and instituted this false and fabricated case for divorce on the ground of cruelty and character assassination of the respondent. There is no valid cause of action in favour of the petitioner to grant the relief as claimed. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is fit to be dismissed with cost. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned trial court has formulated following points/issues for determination in this case: (i) Whether the suit as framed maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Whether the parties are legally married husband and wife ? (iii) Whether the respondent-wife treated the petitioner-husband with cruelty after marriage ? (iv) Whether the petitioner – husband is entitled for relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty or any other relief/reliefs ? 6. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of appellant. All are family members and friends of the appellant. (a) The appellant-husband adduced the following PWs:- P.W. No. Name Remarks 1. Kunal Mehra Appellant-husband himself 2. Sujata Mehra Mother of appellant-husband 3. Vijay Kumar Maternal uncle – ekek of appellant husband 4. Diwakar Singh Family friend of appellant-husband 5. Kiran Prasad Singh Next door neighbour of appellanthusband 6. Abhishek Kr. Singh Tenant under appellant-husband also a witness in Maintenance Case No.29 of 2023 for husband 7. Dilip Kumar Mehra The Uncle of appellant-husband (b) Appellant-husband exhibited the following:- Ext. No. Documents Remarks 1. Copy of missing report lodged by appellant-husband on 13.11.2020 to local Police Station at Patna. He alleged so many things including cruelty etc. by respondent-wife. 2. Copy of the receipt of articles and a cheque of Rs.1 lac by the respondent-wife on 15.11.2020. Admitted & undisputed case. 3. Certified copy of the petition/case filed by the appellant-husband on 21.12.2020 u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (Mat. case no.989/2020) at Patna. Admitted & undisputed case 4. Certified copy of the Order sheet of Mat. case no.989/2020 passed by the Family Court, Patna. Contains filing as well as withdrawal order 5. Admitted & undisputed case. 3. Certified copy of the petition/case filed by the appellant-husband on 21.12.2020 u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1954 (Mat. case no.989/2020) at Patna. Admitted & undisputed case 4. Certified copy of the Order sheet of Mat. case no.989/2020 passed by the Family Court, Patna. Contains filing as well as withdrawal order 5. Certified copy of the complaint case no.1022 of 2021 filed by respondent- wife in C.J.M. Court, Hazaribag on 19.04.2021 along with certified copy of order-sheet, S.A. and deposition of witness in complaint case no.1022 of 2021. The complaint petition contains in para-6 that the appellant-husband has got no vocation and income of own The complaint petition contains in para-6 that the appellant-husband has got no vocation and income of own 6. Certified copy of the petition filed by the appellant-husband on 25.06.2021 for withdrawal of Matrimonial case no.989/2020 in Family Court at Patna. Admitted and undisputed case 7. Certified copy of orders passed in Matrimonial case no.680/2021 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna now in present O.S. 25/2023 Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag. Matter of present case record 8. Certified copy of W.S. fled by the respondent-wife in present Matrimonial Case No.680/2021 at Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna now in O.S. 25/2023 at Principal Judge Family Court, Hazaribag. Matter of present record 9. Certified copy of the petition filed under section 26 of the HM Act by the appellant-husband on 04.01.2022 in Matrimonial case no.680/2021, now O.S. 25/2023 for custody of the children. Matter of present case record (c) Following documents have been marked for identification by appellant-husband:- No. Document Remarks X Copy of the bank statement of the late father of the appellant showing the expense in marriage apart from expenses from other sources and accounts. Not much relevant X/1 Copy of the complaint lodged by respondent-wife on 16.11.2020 to Budha Colony Police Station at Patna. Respondent-wife alleged cruelty by Appellanthusband and mother-in- law. Also indecent act of uncle in-law. X/2 Copy of air tickets booked to and from Jabalpur via Delhi and Hotel Bills of stay at Jabalpur on 24th and 25th of January, 2021 of the travel of appellant, his family members, relatives and well-wishers. Irrelevant X/3 Copy of complaint to Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh by wife. Respondent-wife reiterated her allegation as above X/1 document. X/4 Copy of receipt of Hotel bills of stay at Hazaribagh. Irrelevant X/3 Copy of complaint to Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh by wife. Respondent-wife reiterated her allegation as above X/1 document. X/4 Copy of receipt of Hotel bills of stay at Hazaribagh. Toll plaza charges and Google Map history showing travel from Patna to Hazaribagh and Hazaribagh to Patna dated 15th and 16th of April 2021 of appellant along with his family members to meet the Officer-in-charge of Mahila Thana Police Station Hazaribagh. Irrelevant X/5 Copy of printout of the call details of the appellant for the month of August, 2020. Irrelevant X/6 Copy of Facebook Messenger Chats of one Gagan. There is nothing that Respondent-wife is a party in this chat X/7 Copy of notice by Mahila thana, Hazaribagh to petitioner and his uncle, replies to Incharge Mahila Thana, Hazaribagh, through WhatsApp messages by cousin of petitioner and reply through speed post and WhatsApp to Mahila Thana, Hazaribagh with copy to SP, Hazaribagh, DIG Hazaribagh and DGP, Jharkhand by uncle of appellant dated 01.04.2021 and through speed post and WhatsApp by appellant dated 02.04.2021 and dated 15.06.2021. Admitted and undisputed case. X/8 Copy of WhatsApp Chat between appellant and Respondent after the 13.11.2020. Original not available No certificate from WhatsApp regarding its genuine-ness. X/9 Copy of gifts given by Kunal to his two irrelevant sons. Irrelevant X/10 Photograph of the Respondent -wife with Appellant-husband and his family members showing affectionate relation, few months after marriage. Not much relevant But in two photographs, the uncle-in-law- PW-7- is found holding the respondent-wife from back. This holding does not look like elderly holding !!! X/11 Copy of the certified copy of the maintenance case bearing no.29 of 2023 filed by respondent-wife in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh. Admitted and undisputed It has been allowed in favour of wife and both sons. X/12 Compact disk containing the three audio clip of communication between respondent and her father. Not much relevant X/13 Certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act. Certificates by the Appellant-husband and his uncle-the PW-7. X/14 Two numbers of photographs of injury. There is no face. Can't be safely said whose photograph they are. (d) The respondent-wife adduced the following RWs:- RW. No. Name Remarks 1. Manisha Mehra Respondent-wife herself 2. Rajni Kindra Mother of respondent-wife (e) No documentary evidence by respondent-wife. 7. Certificates by the Appellant-husband and his uncle-the PW-7. X/14 Two numbers of photographs of injury. There is no face. Can't be safely said whose photograph they are. (d) The respondent-wife adduced the following RWs:- RW. No. Name Remarks 1. Manisha Mehra Respondent-wife herself 2. Rajni Kindra Mother of respondent-wife (e) No documentary evidence by respondent-wife. 7. The learned trial court after considering the evidence led by parties and keeping in view the guidelines propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in several leading cases arrived at conclusion that none of the grounds taken to be cruelty at the instance of respondent against her own husband/petitioner are tenable under law. The simple demand of the respondent as appears from the evidence that she does not want any unusual interference in her family life by the uncle of the appellant which alone is the great hurdle in non-resumption of matrimonial relationship between the parties. Therefore, the appellant (husband) has just failed to prove his case of cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to entitle him for a decree of divorce. Accordingly, dismissed the suit on contest but without cost. 8. Here it is pertinent to mention that the word “cruelty” has not been defined under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 rather it is made a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) which provides as under: “13. Divorce:-(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party ----(i)…………. (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.” 9. In the instant case, the specific acts of cruelty on the part of respondent wife may be enumerated as under: “(A) The petitioner/appellant is member of a joint Hindu family along with his father, uncle and other family members but the respondent was insisting for dissolution of joint family and partition of family property.” It is apparent from the record that marriage of the appellant was solemnized in the year 2013 and admittedly partition has taken place on 06.03.2015, therefore, there is no more any joint family at the time of institution of this case. Therefore, above imputation of cruelty has no leg to stand. (B) It is alleged that the respondent wife was a quarrelsome lady. Therefore, above imputation of cruelty has no leg to stand. (B) It is alleged that the respondent wife was a quarrelsome lady. She was quarreling with her mother-in-law, husband and uncle-in-law so as to attract the neighbours and humiliation of family prestige in the vicinity. In this regard, no independent witness of locality has been examined to corroborate the aforesaid fact. Moreover, in spite of above state of affairs, the appellant initially instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights which is indicative of the fact that earlier acts of deemed cruelty on the part of respondent has been condoned by the petitioner/appellant unconditionally. (C) The main stress of the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of argument is that the respondent created an oblique scene on the occasion of Dhanteras dated 13.11.2020. She not only shouted upon the mother of the appellant but also raised hands against her mother-in-law and husband and left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. The learned trial court has rejected the above alleged conduct of the respondent on the ground that it is not specifically pleaded and the fact beyond pleading could not be proved. As against it, the respondent has proved that on the same day, she was physically tortured and assaulted by her husband and was compelled to go away from the house along with children. Any injury report of husband or mother-in-law has not been brought on record to substantiate the above plea. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its several leading cases has explained the scope of cruelty both mental and physical and concluded that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows either the husband or wife to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. Cruelty is broadly defined as any conduct that would cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it is harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. It can be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional, and is a subjective concept that varies in each case depending on the facts and circumstances. The word cruelty as defined includes the conduct of one spouse that causes such mental suffering or physical pain that it endangers the life, limb or health of the other spouse or makes it impossible for the petitioner to carry on living with the respondent. The word cruelty as defined includes the conduct of one spouse that causes such mental suffering or physical pain that it endangers the life, limb or health of the other spouse or makes it impossible for the petitioner to carry on living with the respondent. “Physical Cruelty” has been explained as to any act or conduct that causes bodily harm or possess a threat to the life, limb or health of one spouse by the other spouse. It includes physical violence, assault, or any other form of harmful behaviour that endangers the physical wellbeing of the victim. In case of physical cruelty, a spouse can file for divorce or seek legal protection. “Mental Cruelty” refers to the infliction of emotional or psychological distress on one spouse by the other spouse. It includes behaviour or conduct that is of such a nature that it makes impossible for the victim spouse to live with the other spouse. Mental cruelty can take various form, such as constant humiliation, verbal abuse, harassment, neglect, threat, or persistent indifference towards the well being of the other spouse. Concept of mental cruelty is subjective and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no exhaustive list of acts or behaviours that constitute mental cruelty, as it can vary based on individual experiences and cultural contexts. However, some common examples of mental cruelty recognized in Hindu matrimonial law include: “(i) Verbal abuse and humiliation, persistent use of derogatory language, insults or constant berating of the spouse. (ii) Threats and Intimidation: Regularly subjecting the spouse to threats of physical harm, emotional blackmail, or other forms of intimidation. (iii) Emotional Abandonment: Neglecting the emotional needs of the spouse, showing complete indifference, or engaging in emotional detachment. (iv) Harassment and Stalking: Stalking, monitoring or excessive surveillance of the spouse, causing fear and distress. (v) Constant Criticism and Ridicule: Regularly belittling or mocking the spouse ability, appearance, or character. (vi) Social Isolation: Deliberately isolating the spouse from family, friends, or social support networks, leading to feelings of loneliness and exclusion. (vii) Unreasonable Demands and Control: Exerting excessive control over the spouse’s actions, decisions, or freedom, leading to a loss of individuality and autonomy. (v) Constant Criticism and Ridicule: Regularly belittling or mocking the spouse ability, appearance, or character. (vi) Social Isolation: Deliberately isolating the spouse from family, friends, or social support networks, leading to feelings of loneliness and exclusion. (vii) Unreasonable Demands and Control: Exerting excessive control over the spouse’s actions, decisions, or freedom, leading to a loss of individuality and autonomy. (viii) Denial of Basic Rights and Amenities: Withholding financial support, denying access to basic amenities or intentionally causing living conditions that are detrimental to the spouse wellbeing.” (D) It is important to note that the Courts must consider cumulative effect of various acts and behaviours when determining mental cruelty. The severity, frequency, and duration of the conduct are also taken into account. The spouse seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty must provide evidence and demonstrate that the cruelty has reached a level where it has made the continuation of marriage infavourable. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, cruelty can be physical as well as mental:- If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the days for cruelty is whether the conduct of the respondent is of such a nature that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. It is noted that the concept of cruelty is ever changing and cannot be defined with a precision. In the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the mental cruelty may be caused by a number of factors, neglecting false accusations of adultery or unchastity, unjustified denial of sexual intercourse, unjustified refusal to have children, and excessive demands for dowry. In the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the mental cruelty may be caused by a number of factors, neglecting false accusations of adultery or unchastity, unjustified denial of sexual intercourse, unjustified refusal to have children, and excessive demands for dowry. In the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that false allegations of adultery, mental illness and importance can amount to mental cruelty. It also noted that in cases of mental cruelty it is not necessary to prove physical injury or danger to life. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 , in this case it was held that the petitioner must show a consistent pattern of behaviour by the respondent to prove cruelty. It noted that occasional outbursts of anger or quarrels do not necessarily amounts to cruelty. 11. We have carefully apprised the behavioural process of both parties as depicted in the instant case. The plea of cruel conduct taken by the appellant against the respondent wife does not come under the category of “cruelty” as a ground for divorce in this case. The appellant has failed to prove such conduct of the respondent which may cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of appellant/petitioner that it is harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. Admittedly, the appellant has taken recourse of restitution of conjugal rights by instituting a suit under Section 9 but when the wife filed a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and a proceeding for asking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The mind setup of the appellant changed and he withdrew the case of restitution of conjugal rights and filed this case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. He has also levelled a wild imputation of chastity against the respondent which has no basis at all. Therefore, we are of the considered view that learned trial court has committed no illegality in dismissing the petition for divorce of the appellant. We concur with the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court which is hereby upheld and this appeal is dismissed on merits. Both parties are directed to bear their own cost. 12. Therefore, we are of the considered view that learned trial court has committed no illegality in dismissing the petition for divorce of the appellant. We concur with the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court which is hereby upheld and this appeal is dismissed on merits. Both parties are directed to bear their own cost. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.