ORDER : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as “Wife”) against the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as “Husband) challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Sikar, (hereinafter to be referred as “the learned Court below”), whereby the learned Court below allowed the application seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1955’) filed on behalf of the husband. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband filed an application seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the wife before the learned Court below stating therein that the marriage between the husband and wife was solemnized in the year 1983 and the behaviour of the wife was cruel with the husband. It was further stated in the application that she levelled unnecessary allegations against the husband and his father and on many occasions, she tried to commit suicide and started living separately since the year 2000, therefore, the husband was forced to file the divorce application. Lastly, prayed for granting of decree of divorce. 3. The wife submitted reply to the said application before the learned Court below and denied the allegations levelled by the husband and prayed for dismissal of the divorce application. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:- 5. The learned Court below after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties allowed the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by the husband vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010 passed by the learned Court below, the wife has filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the wife submits that learned Court below has decided the application filed on behalf of the husband in a summary manner and the findings have not been recorded on each and every issue by the learned Court below. He further submits that the learned Court below has failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and prayed for allowing the appeal. 7. He further submits that the learned Court below has failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and prayed for allowing the appeal. 7. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the wife relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Sitapur Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das reported in 1964 SCC Online 18 and another judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Shanti Lal Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Raj 72 . 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the wife and submits that admittedly, the wife deserted the husband since the year 2000 without any reason, thereafter, the husband filed divorce application in the year 2005, therefore, issue of desertion was found proved against the wife by the learned Court below. He further submits that on many occasions, she tried to commit suicide and the said fact has been proved by leading evidence by the husband before the learned Court below. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The point of cruelty has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at length in catena of judgments and in a recent judgment delivered in the matter of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported in 2023 17 SCC 433 , wherein in paras No.17 and 18, it was held as under:- “17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and ‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as well as mental:- “ 46…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. 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. Cruelty can be even unintentional:- …The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill- treatment.” This Court though did ultimately give certain illus trations of mental cruelty. Some of these are as follows: (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. (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. (emphasis supplied) 18. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed together as a couple for four years and who have now been living separately for the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond re- pair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cru- elty on both the sides. There is no child out of the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond re- pair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cru- elty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the com- plete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.” 11. The Bombay High Court in the matter of XXX Vs. YYY reported 2025 SCC Online Bom 679 decided on 20.02.2025 wherein para No.8, it has been held as under:- “8. Under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is not open for this Court to re- assess the evidence to record independent finding of fact. It is however open for the wife to satisfy this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are inconsistent with the evidence on record and hence perverse. Perusal of evidence of husband, his father and one more witness i.e. friend of the father more than sufficiently demonstrates that the contention of the husband is duly proved by leading cogent evidence. On the other hand, wife was unable to give any explanation for making allegation against the father of the husband without making any compliant to that effect to the police. Here in this case, husband has not only made allegation that wife used to threaten him and his family to send them to jail by committing suicide but infact that attempt was made. Such an act on the part of spouse would amount to such a cruelty that it becomes a ground for decree of divorce. Here in this case, husband has not only made allegation that wife used to threaten him and his family to send them to jail by committing suicide but infact that attempt was made. Such an act on the part of spouse would amount to such a cruelty that it becomes a ground for decree of divorce. In any case, perusal of the evidence on record shows that the findings of the Trial Court for granting dissolution of marriage confirmed by the First Appellate Court are consistent with the same. Thus, no perversity is seen in the said findings to cause any interference therein. Thus, for want of any perversity or involvement of substantial question of law in this appeal, appeal stands dismissed.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malathi Ravi, M.D. Vs. B.V. Ravi, M.D. reported in 2014 7 SCC 640 , wherein, para No.18, it has been held as under:- 18. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the petition and the evidence adduced by the parties and the judgment of the Family Court and that of the High Court. The plea that was raised for grant of divorce was under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act. It provides for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The aforesaid provision stipulates that a husband or wife would be entitled to a dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce if the other party has deserted the party seeking the divorce for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Desertion, as a ground for divorce, was inserted in Section 13 by Act 68 of 1976. Prior to the amendment it was only a ground for judicial separation. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhatta Sri Devi reported in 2002 1 SCC 308 , wherein, para No.7, it has been held as under:- 7. "Desertion" in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of this offence in order that it may furnish a ground relief are: 1. the factum of separation; 2. "Desertion" in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of this offence in order that it may furnish a ground relief are: 1. the factum of separation; 2. the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end - animus deserendi; 3. the element of permanence which is a prime condition requires that both these essential ingredients should continue during the entire statutory period; The clause lays down the rule that desertion to amount to a matrimonial offence must be for a continuous period of not less than, two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This clause has to be read with the Explanation. The Explanation has widened the definition of desertion to include "wilful neglect" of the petitioning spouse by the respondent. It states that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner. From the Explanation it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended to give to the expression a wide import which include neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. Therefore, for the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (I) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. The petition for divorce bears the burden of proving those elements in the two spouses respectively and their continuance throughout the statutory period. 14. We have gone through the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2010 passed by the learned Court below and the evidence submitted by the parties before it. 15. We have considered the evidence produced by the husband as AW-1 and also the evidence of other witnesses AW-2 to AW-5, all of them have stated that the behaviour of the wife was cruel with the husband and many a times, she tried to commit suicide. In our considered view, trying to commit suicide by the wife amounts to cruelty. 16. In our considered view, trying to commit suicide by the wife amounts to cruelty. 16. We have also considered the evidence of wife NAW-1, who in her cross-examination, on specific questions raised by the Court and answered as under:- In our considered view, the wife has specifically answered the Court question that she did not want to live with the husband and the issue of desertion stands proved against the wife, as she without any justifiable reason deserted the husband for five years prior to the filing of the divorce application. 17. We have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the wife that on each and every issue, findings have not been recorded by the learned Court below. The said arguments have no force, as this Court while hearing the appeal has seen the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Court below and as per the evidence which came on record, we are of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in allowing the application filed on behalf of the husband under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. 18. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court, hence, this appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. 19. Record of the learned Court below be sent back. 20. Learned counsel for the wife wants to withdraw the application filed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for granting of permanent alimony with liberty to file the same before the competent court of law. 21. In that view of the matter, the application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is dismissed with liberty as prayed for.