JUDGMENT : (Radhakishan Agrawal, J.) Since both the appeals involve similar question of facts and law, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant-Husband preferred a civil suit before the Court below for dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955'), whereas respondent-wife herein has also preferred a civil suit before the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1955. Both the civil suits were registered as Civil Suit No.135-A/2017 (Nitin Naiyar v. Smt. Jyoti Naiyar) and another was registered as Civil Suit No. 89A/2016 (Smt. Jyoti Naiyar v. Nitin Naiyar). Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2021, the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G., rejected the Civil Suit No.135-A/2017 filed by the appellant- Husband while decreeing the Civil Suit No.89-A/2016 in favour of respondent-wife. 3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgments dated 24.12.2021, the appellant-husband herein preferred these appeals seeking decree of divorce in his favour while praying for setting aside the decree passed in favour of respondent-wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.10.2012, marriage of the appellant-husband was solemnized with the respondent-wife according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Bhilai, Durg. After marriage, the respondent-wife joined the company of the appellant-husband and after some time, she started quarreling and misbehaving with the husband and his parents and exerting the pressure upon the appellant-husband to live separate from parents, which was objected by him and make her understand to live peacefully. When the mother of the appellant was suffering from cancer, the appellant explained her own responsibilities and duties towards old aged in-laws, to which the respondent-wife got annoyed and used to go to her parental home without any information and also used to pressurize him for separation. After several persuasion by the appellant / husband, there is no change in her behaviour. It is further pleaded that after marriage, she never remained in the matrimonial home for a continuous period of three months. It is also pleaded that the respondent-wife used to advise him to send old aged parents to his brother's house at Ludhiana. She also used to threaten the appellant-husband to implicate him in a false case, if he refused to live separate from his parents. 5. It is also pleaded that the respondent-wife used to advise him to send old aged parents to his brother's house at Ludhiana. She also used to threaten the appellant-husband to implicate him in a false case, if he refused to live separate from his parents. 5. On 10.03.2014, the respondent-wife was operated as fibroids were found in her uterus, on account of which doctor advised her not to have physical relations for a period of six months and even after passing of six months, she could not recover and further treatment was going on and again she has been advised by the Doctor not to maintain physical relations. Despite that, the respondent-wife used to taunt him with respect to his impotency. It is also averred by the appellant-husband that before the engagement ceremony, he gave a gift in the form of vehicle activa to the respondent-wife, which she is currently using. It is also averred by him, in June, 2013, he and respondent-wife had made a trip to North India but respondent-wife did not want to keep ATM Card with her in order to bear the expenses. However, for the security reasons, in the month of May, 2013, respondent-wife had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- in the account of appellant-husband and despite that in the said tour, all the expenses were borne out by the appellant-husband. It is also averred by him that respondent-wife always pressurized him to get separated himself from his parents so that she can live independently and when he refused to do so, she started quarreling with him and left the matrimonial home on 23.12.2014. He has also averred that respondent-wife is working as Junior Engineer in C.G. Electricity Board, whereas he is working as Professor in a Private University and earn less than the respondent-wife, therefore, he had to leave his parents and stay with respondent-wife, else she would implicate him and his family members in a false case. He has also averred that he and his family members were subjected to cruelty and mental harassment as well as ill-treatment by the wife and her family members and she was living separately from appellant since 23.12.2014, therefore, husband has been compelled to file an application seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce. 6. In reply, respondent-wife, while admitting the factum of marriage with the respondent-husband on 19.10.2012, denied the averments. 6. In reply, respondent-wife, while admitting the factum of marriage with the respondent-husband on 19.10.2012, denied the averments. It was specifically pleaded by her that she never pressurized the appellant-husband to live separately from his parents. After marriage of two years, she was discharging her marital responsibilities while taking care of her in-laws. She has also admitted the fact that she is working as Engineer in Electricity Board and her sister is working as Patwari. It has also been pleaded that she is ready and willing to join the company of the husband and she had great respect towards her in-laws. It has further been pleaded that before marriage, appellant-husband did not inform her that his mother is suffering from cancer and even in absence of such information, she had been cooperating in the treatment of her mother-in-law properly, whereas elder brother of the appellant who live in Punjab never extend any cooperation during the course of treatment of mother-in-law and the entire responsibility was shouldered by the appellant-husband. It has also been pleaded that after two years of marriage, she came to know that she is suffering from disease called fibroids in her uterus, but due to the said illness, appellant-husband always used to torture her mentally and physically by saying that she is infertile and would never become a mother. Before the disease was detected, her marriage life was going smoothly. It is further alleged that respondent-husband always used to withdraw money from her account on the pretext of treatment of his mother. It is also alleged that during the course of North-India Tour, she had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the account of respondent-husband, then only the said tour program was made. It is also alleged that respondent-husband is working as Professor in Private College whereas she is a government employee and respondent-husband always took advantage of her government job. She has also pleaded that respondent-husband always used her ATM and when she refused, then appellant used to commit marpeet upon her by saying that she is not fulfilling his needs and he would not bring her back. She has also pleaded that respondent-husband always used her ATM and when she refused, then appellant used to commit marpeet upon her by saying that she is not fulfilling his needs and he would not bring her back. She has also averred that she is always ready and willing to join the company of the husband and is ready to perform matrimonial obligations, but on 23.12.2014, she was driven out of her in-laws house by appellant-husband, therefore, she is compelled to reside in her parental home. She has also pleaded that she and her family members have always tried to stay together, therefore, she has filed a counter suit / separate application for restitution of conjugal rights. It has been further prayed by her that the petition filed by her husband seeking dissolution of marriage is baseless, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Before the Family Court, parties led evidence and brought on material documents. The Family Court, on the basis of evidence and material available on record, allowed the counter suit /application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground that appellant-husband failed to prove his case. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-husband is before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant / husband submits that the impugned judgment and decree granted in favour of respondent-wife is contrary to law and erroneous. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the pleadings and evidence to the effect that the appellant / husband was not ready to leave his parents and that the wife used to quarrel with him and ultimately she left the matrimonial home, without any reasonable cause. He also submits that the wife was harassing the husband both mentally and physically. According to him, there is no cohabitation between the parties since 2014, as the wife was living separately without sufficient cause. Thus, the learned Court below ought to have granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband. 9. He also submits that the wife was harassing the husband both mentally and physically. According to him, there is no cohabitation between the parties since 2014, as the wife was living separately without sufficient cause. Thus, the learned Court below ought to have granted decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / wife submits that the husband used to quarrel with the wife, his behaviour towards her was cruel and he always created hindrances in her life because of which she was not able to perform her marital duties properly. According to the wife, without any rhyme or reason, appellant-husband driven her out from the matrimonial home. Respondent / Wife is always ready to discharge her matrimonial obligations, which were prevented by the appellant-husband on one occasion or other. He also submits that the Family Court considering all the relevant aspects of the matter in light of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof has rightly granted decree in favour of respondent-wife and was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. As such, no interference in the impugned judgment and decree is warranted. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the evidence available on record. 11. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the appellant-husband was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the respondent-wife, resulting therein they are living separately from the year 2014? 12. Admittedly, marriage between both the parties was solemnized on 19.10.2012 at Bhilai, District Durg. After marriage, the respondent-wife joined the company of appellant-husband. Husband / PW-1 Nitin Naiyar stated on oath under Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC that even after marriage, the respondent-wife is reluctant to live with him, as mother of the appellant-husband is suffering from cancer and she used to avoid martial responsibilities towards his sick and old aged parents. She always used to quarrel with him even on trivial issues and pressurized him to live separately, looking to the pitiable condition of the in-laws. It is also come in his evidence, she used to leave the matrimonial home often in order to meet his family members. During the course of her stay in maternal home, she never contacted him or his family members. It is also come in his evidence, she used to leave the matrimonial home often in order to meet his family members. During the course of her stay in maternal home, she never contacted him or his family members. After marriage, she never remained in the matrimonial home for a continuous period of three months. He has also stated that respondent-wife always used to taunt him on the pretext of diseases suffered by his parents whereas his parents expected love and affection from her, but she refused to look after them with care and caution and in turn, advised the appellant-husband to send old aged parents to his brother's house at Ludhiana. On 10.03.2014, on account of detection of fibroids in her uterus, doctor advised her not to have physical relations for a period of six months, despite that she used to taunt him with respect to his impotency. It is also come in his evidence that after marriage, entire financial responsibility has been borne out by him and he never put any pressure upon the respondent-wife of bearing the financial responsibility, but she always had the intention of humiliating him and ultimately, she has left the matrimonial home on 23.12.2014. In this way, he and his family members were subjected to cruelty by respondent-wife. In his cross-examination, it has come that after marriage, both of them visited gurudwara on one or two occasion and before leaving for office, she used to prepare food for both of them. After marriage, respondent-wife started living with his joint family. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that respondent-wife never quarrel either with him or his family members. It has also been admitted by him that respondent-wife had great respect towards her parents like him. He has put forth in his cross-examination that although the respondent-wife has pressurized him to live separately from his parents, but he never made any complaint or report in that regard either before Police Station or before any consultation committee or in Gurudwara. It has been admitted by him that the respondent-wife never made any complaint nor made any report against them despite she was threatening him and his family members. It has also been admitted by him that the respondent-wife levelled allegations against him in her application, but prior filing such application, she never made any complaint against him nor he made any complaint against her. It has also been admitted by him that the respondent-wife levelled allegations against him in her application, but prior filing such application, she never made any complaint against him nor he made any complaint against her. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that in May, 2013, the respondent-wife deposited a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- in his account for the purpose of tour and he used the said amount in the tour and out of the said amount, the additional expenses incurred were borne out by him. He has also admitted that prior to filing his application for grant of divorce, the respondent-wife had already filed his application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and the allegations levelled in her application are false and baseless. A suggestion was made by the Court that even today the respondent-wife wants to live in the joint family of the appellant-husband, to which he replied that if she wanted to live with him, then why would she have left him about 7 years ago. 13. On the other hand, the respondent wife was examined as DW-1. She stated on oath under Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC that after marriage, the appellant and his family used to hurl abuses in filthy language and committed marpeet in connection with demand of dowry and she never refused to perform his matrimonial obligations. She has also stated that she has always been taunting by appellant-husband in name of infertile. It has also come in her evidence that she never abandoned her husband and his family members rather the appellant and his family members driven her out on 23.12.2014. Since then, she has become dependent on her parents. She always tried to make the appellant's family happy and unite the family with the appellant-husband, therefore, she has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Even today, she is willing to live with the appellant-husband. She was subjected to cross-examination and she remained firm in what has been stated in examination-in-chief. Barring this, she has stated that the appellant told her to attend duty on her own. Even today, she is willing to live with the appellant-husband. She was subjected to cross-examination and she remained firm in what has been stated in examination-in-chief. Barring this, she has stated that the appellant told her to attend duty on her own. The Court in para 19 of her cross-examination asked two questions to the respondent-wife, one she has been subjected to cruelty by the appellant-husband and his family members and another that after two years of marriage, she has been leading the happy married life, upon which the respondent-wife denied the fact of cruelty and harassment meted out by appellant-husband. She has also admitted that whatever expenses incurred during the course of tour was borne out by the appellant-husband by using his ATM card. She has further put forth that she returned to her matrimonial home on 03.01.2013 and since then she is living with them and started going to attend duty. After returning to matrimonial home, the appellant-husband took care of her. She has also admitted that she was ousted from the matrimonial home but in this regard, she did not make any complaint against the appellant-husband and instead she filed a petition under Section 09 for restitution of conjugal rights. At para 35 her cross-examination, she further admitted that there is no mention anywhere in the applications under Section 09 of the Act, 1955, Section 13 of the Act, 1955 or in her examination-in-chief that for how much dowry and in what manner her husband and his parents tortured her physically and mentally. 14. Cross-examination of respondent-wife in application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 filed by her wherein at para 37, she categorically denied the suggestion that she wanted to live separately with her husband and also denied the suggestion that she has ever pressurized the husband to send his parents to Ludhina at his brother's home. In para 38, she has denied that she has never threatened her husband and in-laws involving them in a false case. She has admitted that she is compelled to reside in her maternal home on account of her being driven out / ousted from matrimonial home. In para 38, she has denied that she has never threatened her husband and in-laws involving them in a false case. She has admitted that she is compelled to reside in her maternal home on account of her being driven out / ousted from matrimonial home. She has also admitted that she is always in contact with her husband and wanted to live with him and when she was separated from her husband, she had tried for the first time to pacify the dispute at Sai Mandir on 31 May, 2016. 15. As per the general norms of our society, after marriage the bride resides with the groom at her matrimonial home and she is expected to discharge her matrimonial obligations. However, in the present case, from perusal of the above evidence, it quite vivid that marriage between the parties were solemnized on 19.10.2012 and after marriage, appellant and respondent started living together in a matrimonial home. During course of cohabitation, although some disputes and differences arose between the parties which are trivial in nature, but it is clear from perusal of evidence of DW-1 wife coupled with her evidence adduced in cross-examination that she is ready and willing to reside with the appellant-husband and she never pressurized him to live separately from his parents rather she always took care of them. The evidence brought on record also goes to show that without any rhyme or reason, appellant-husband ousted her from the matrimonial home, despite the fact that respondent / wife is always ready to discharge her matrimonial obligations, which were prevented by the appellant-husband on one occasion or other and that the respondent - wife made all possible efforts to save her marital life. By way of pleadings and evidence of the appellant-husband, the appellant levelled allegations against the respondent-wife to the effect that the respondent-wife subjected him and his parents to cruelty or harassment frequently, but no reliable evidence in that regard has been produced by the appellant-husband before the learned Family Court. Further, the appellant-husband has not examined his parents as witness. The appellant-husband also alleged that the respondent-wife used to taunt him with respect to his impotency, but there is no medical document filed by the respondent-wife, whereas she has filed some medical documents exhibited as Ex.D-3(C) which shows that she is complained of fibroids in her uterus. 16. Cruelty may be physical or mental. The appellant-husband also alleged that the respondent-wife used to taunt him with respect to his impotency, but there is no medical document filed by the respondent-wife, whereas she has filed some medical documents exhibited as Ex.D-3(C) which shows that she is complained of fibroids in her uterus. 16. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other spouse. Cruelty normally has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life and naturally it cannot be adjudged on the basis of the sensitivity of a particular person, when one of the parties to the marriage gives a self-certificate about conduct of the other regarding cruelty. Petty outrageous behaviour or differences between the spouses does not come in the ambit of cruelty because this is something that is common in a day to day married life. 17. The Family Court, considering the evidence and material available on record, held that the appellant-husband has failed to prove the allegations levelled by him against the respondent-wife, therefore, he is not entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage and accordingly, dismissed his suit and allowed the suit filed by the respondent-wife under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights as the respondent-wife has successfully proved its case. Thus, having overall assessment of the evidence, we are of the opinion that cruelty on which divorce was sought for has not been proved by the appellant. 18. Being so, the finding arrived at by the learned Court below granting decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent / wife does not call for any interference. 19. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant-husband being without any substance are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. 20. A decree be drawn up accordingly.