JUDGMENT : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant/unsuccessful husband being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in O.P.No.1207of 2011 dated 04.06.2015, which is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage between the appellant and respondent held on 05.09.2007. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of O.P. before the learned Trial Court are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 05.09.2007 as per Hindu customs and traditions and they lived together at Nellore for about three months. The appellant contended that during their stay at Nellore, the respondent developed a negative attitude towards the appellant and started abusing and ill-treating him in different ways. Thereafter, the respondent being an employee, transferred to Hyderabad and as such, they shifted their family to Bowinapally, Hyderabad for about 9 months. During the said stay, the respondent developed ego problem and started humiliating the appellant and also used to leave the house as per her whims and fancies. The appellant contends that the respondent returns home late night and when the appellant questioned the same, the respondent used to pick up quarrel with the appellant and on some occasions, the respondent did not even prepare food and used to demand the appellant to get food from the hotels. 3. The appellant averred in the O.P. that the age of respondent was suppressed at the time of marriage and the father of respondent made propaganda to everyone that the appellant was a software Engineer, but in fact the appellant is a Scientist. It is further averred that the respondent has many boyfriends and used to move friendly with them, used to talk to them over phone for several times in a day apart from ill-treating the appellant. The respondent also humiliated the appellant in the presence of his mother and others. When the differences are increasing, during the month of January, 2009, mediation was also conducted before the elders. Thereafter, the respondent gave birth to a child on 28.02.2009 at Nellore, but the appellant was not informed about the same. When the appellant visited the respondent at Nellore, the respondent abused and ill-treated him and did not allow tosee the child. When the differences are increasing, during the month of January, 2009, mediation was also conducted before the elders. Thereafter, the respondent gave birth to a child on 28.02.2009 at Nellore, but the appellant was not informed about the same. When the appellant visited the respondent at Nellore, the respondent abused and ill-treated him and did not allow tosee the child. Thus, the appellant contended that the respondent has no interest in leading marital life with the appellant and as such, she is misbehaving, ill-treating and abusing him, and as such, he requires to be separated from the respondent to have a peaceful live. 4. On the other hand, the respondent/wife filed counter before the learned Trial Court denying the allegations of the appellant, stating that after the marriage, the appellant got a job as Scientist at Dehradun and later he developed a desire to marry again for more dowry due to his job position. She contended that the appellant and his two sisters along with his mother used to demand the respondent to bring costly household articles, and when she failed to oblige the same, they used to harass and ill- treat her. The respondent further claimed that she gave birth to the son with the knowledge of the appellant and his family members and that the appellant also visited her on the date of her discharge from the hospital after consulting for caesarean operation while his sisters and parents stayed with her in the hospital and attended to her delivery. 5. The respondent claimed that the appellant has tried to defame her character apart from attempting to cruelty, humiliation, insulting etc for the purpose of filing the petition seeking divorce with a view to acquire some more dowry from second marriage. The respondent contended that she never deserted the appellant nor ill-treated him, and she is willing to continue the conjugal life with the appellant. 6. Before the learned Trial Court, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. The respondent examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R-1 to R-9. 7. The learned Trial Court framed the point that whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage dated 05.09.2007 between the petitioner/appellant and respondent, for consideration. 8. Heard Ms.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Madhu Sudana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent at length. 9. 7. The learned Trial Court framed the point that whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage dated 05.09.2007 between the petitioner/appellant and respondent, for consideration. 8. Heard Ms.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Madhu Sudana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent at length. 9. Ms.K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Trial Court erroneously observed that the disputes between the appellant and the respondent are trivial in nature and cannot be termed as either cruel or desertion on the part of the respondent. Particularly when the appellant married the respondent, who is a Bank employee, which is a transferable job and the appellant, being an employee, would have known that the respondent would have to be in touch with her colleagues and others due to her job requirements and the same cannot be termed as either cruelty or desertion. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent/wife ill-treated the appellant by abusing in filthy language and tortured him mentally in the presence of his mother and in-laws, that the respondent left the company of the husband in the second week of August, 2008 and left to Hyderabad, later at the intervention of elders, Srimantham function was performed in January, 2009 with the expenses of the appellant, that the child was born on 28.02.2009 and since then there was no contact between the appellant and the respondent. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by granting divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 11. By placing reliance on the judgments in Poonam Vs. Surender Kumar , [2021(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 661] , Sivasankaran Vs. Santhimeenal , [2022(1) ALT 42] , D.Narasimha @ Narasimhulu Vs. Smt.D.Anita Vaishnavi , Order of this Court dated 21-06-2024 passed in C.M.A.No.68 of 2022 and Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh , [I (2007) DMC 597 (SC)] , learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the expression of ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Act and that cruelty can be physical or mental. The cruelty is a ground for dissolution of marriage and it may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character. It a cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. 12. The cruelty is a ground for dissolution of marriage and it may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character. It a cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. 12. Therefore, it is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant to allow the appeal by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and respondent. 13. On the other hand, Sri P.Madhu Sudana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant herein did not adduce any evidence in support his contention of cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent. 14. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent that basing on the entire evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the dispute between spouses are trivial in nature and cannot be termed as either cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent, and that the appellant, being an employee, would have known that the respondent has to be in touch with her colleagues and others in view of her job requirements, and as such, no malice can be attributed to the respondent. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that there is no proper pleading in the petition filed by the appellant before the learned Trial Court as to the date of alleged desertion or even the appellant did not plead that the respondent left the matrimonial house with an intention to permanently abandon him. It is contended that the starting point of alleged two years continuous desertion is not explained in the OP as to whether it is from 07.02.2009 on which date ‘Sreemantham’ function was conducted by the appellant at his native place Singarayakonda village or from 04.03.2009 onwards when he visited the parental house of the respondent on the occasion of birth of the child, and even both the dates are taken into consideration, there is no continuous two years period of alleged desertion to grant any relief. 16. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that on the ground of cruelty, the appellant made some vague allegations without any supporting evidence, and that the said allegations are not at all grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that the appellant/husband cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent/wife. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the appellant visited the new born child only one time and that the appellant neither sent any mediators nor he himself went to the parental house of the respondent to get back his child and wife, thereby he completely neglected the respondent and the child without providing any maintenance to his child or to spend time with the child. 18. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that no prior notice was issued by the appellant before filing the OP inviting the respondent and the son to matrimonial house. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance upon the counter filed before the learned Trial Court contended that basing on the ill-advice of the appellant’s mother and two sisters, the appellant started harassing and abusing the respondent to bring costly and luxurious furniture from her parents, and when the respondent and her parents failed to meet the said demands, the appellant filed the OP with all false and untenable allegations. 20. It is also contended that the respondent never chose to leave the matrimonial house at any point of time much less with a view to permanently abandon the appellant. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore contended that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings, and thus, the conduct of the appellant disentitles him from granting dissolution of marriage. 22. We have given our earnest attention to the contentions raised on either side at length.The core issues that arise for consideration are whether the appellant has established (i) that the respondent treated him with cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and (ii) that there was desertion by the respondent without reasonable cause and with an intention to permanently abandon the marital relationship. 23. A careful perusal of the record reveals that during cross-examination of P.W.2, who is childhood friend of appellant admitted that he do not know the disputes between the appellant and respondent. 23. A careful perusal of the record reveals that during cross-examination of P.W.2, who is childhood friend of appellant admitted that he do not know the disputes between the appellant and respondent. During cross- examination of P.W.3, brother of the appellant admitted that the appellant and his mother did not visit the hospital to see the son of appellant. P.W.3 further stated in his cross-examination that the appellant used to tell him that he married the respondent only on the pressure made by his father and has no interest at all. 24. Basing on the evidence adduced by both sides and material available on record, the learned Trial Court held that there is no incident of cruelty being hurdled by the appellant against the respondent and even the evidence of his witnesses does not support the contention of the appellant that the respondent inflicted cruelty towards him. The learned Trial Court further observed that the appellant herein did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention of alleged cruelty and desertion on the part of respondent. 25. While summarizing the entire evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Trial Court held that the disputes between the appellant and respondent are trivial in nature, particularly when the appellant married the respondent, who was a Bank employee, would have known that it is a transferable job and that she has to be in touch with her colleagues and others in view of job requirements, and the same cannot be termed either as cruelty or desertion on the part of respondent. 26. In the absence of any specific reasons attributing cruelty and desertion against the respondent, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not place any significance to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 27. It is a settled principle that cruelty, whether physical or mental, must be of such gravity and severity as to make it impossible for the parties to live together. Trivial irritations, normal wear and tear of married life, or mere incompatibility of temperament do not constitute cruelty. 28. The plea of desertion has also not been substantiated. The appellant has not pleaded with specificity the date from which such desertion is alleged to have commenced, nor has he established that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the intention never to return. 28. The plea of desertion has also not been substantiated. The appellant has not pleaded with specificity the date from which such desertion is alleged to have commenced, nor has he established that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the intention never to return. On the contrary, the record reveals that the respondent gave birth to a child in 2009, expressed willingness to resume cohabitation, and the appellant neither took steps to bring her back nor provided maintenance to the respondent or the child. These facts indicate neglect on the part of the appellant rather than desertion by the respondent. 29. Basing on the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the trivial disputes between the spouses can be settled amicably in the larger interest of the family and child. 30. Therefore, this Court holds that the ingredients of ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’ have not been made out by the appellant warranting interference by this Court with the reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the OP filed by him. 31. Accordingly, F.C.A.No.11 of 2022 is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. All connected applications shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.