JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 21 st November, 2022 decree signed on 30 th November, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 760 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case: 2. The brief facts of the case, as taken note in the impugned order, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under: 3. The case of appellant-husband, in brief, is that the appellant has solemnized marriage with the respondent on 24-06-2012 at Katras, Dhanbad, according with Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage both the appellant and respondent had been living together as wife and husband at Babudih, Dhanbad. However, out of the wedlock, the couple has no child. 4. It is alleged that after marriage the respondent used to regularly fight with the appellant-husband?s mother and father, which caused mental pressure upon them and for that the appellant?s father had to undergo By-pass surgery in 2015. After that from 21-11-2022 the appellant-husband brought the respondent to Bekarbandh, Dhanbad and started living with her. But after few days the respondent-wife started fighting and abusing with the appellant. 5. It is further stated that the respondent used to scream and shout at the appellant and behaved very rudely and she did not like the appellant and she has no cordial relations with his parents and other family members. The respondent used to abuse the appellant and his family members specially his old mother with filthy languages. This caused immense mental agony and pain to the appellant time and over. 6. It is stated that this act of the respondent amounts to cruelty and the reasonable apprehension that cohabitation with the respondent of the plaintiff would be harmful and injurious. 7. It is further stated that the appellant has till date on several occasion accommodated the respondent and given her several opportunities to improve her behavior but the respondent is turning violent and unbearable towards the appellant. 7. It is further stated that the appellant has till date on several occasion accommodated the respondent and given her several opportunities to improve her behavior but the respondent is turning violent and unbearable towards the appellant. The appellant thought that the respondent needs time to settle in the marriage and accommodate her to the best of his capability but the respondent started torturing the appellant physically and mentally and tried to dove the appellant to lose his mental status or commit suicide. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiff-appellant prayed to pass an order for dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce, on the grounds, as stated above. 9. Respondent appeared and contested the suit by filing the written statement wherein she has stated that the instant suit for grant of a decree of divorce filed by the petitioner- appellant is not legally maintainable either in facts or in law. 10. It is stated that after marriage both parties started living at Dhanbad as husband and wife. It is true that the couple is issueless but due to negligence of the appellant. It is further stated that it is totally false to say that prior to the marriage the petitioner-appellant has narrated entire facts and his family affair before the respondent as alleged but on the other hand at that point of time the appellant and his parents have concealed lot of fact about his nature. It is further stated that it is not out of place to mention here that as per filthy demand of the appellant and his family members etc. After marriage the respondent gave full regards and respect to her in laws and equal love and affection to the petitioner-appellant. It is false to say that the version of the appellant that entire marriage expenses were mostly met by the appellant and his family members. It is further stated that the respondent became pregnant in the year 2017 but her in laws openly told her that they did not require any issue and asked the respondent to destroy the pregnancy to which this respondent politely denied. It is false to say that the respondent made any suspicion on her husband or humiliated him or disturbed the peace of the life of her husband at any point of time. 11. It is false to say that the respondent made any suspicion on her husband or humiliated him or disturbed the peace of the life of her husband at any point of time. 11. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Additional Principal Judge -II framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff, the appellant herein [husband] is entitled for a decree of divorce. 12. The learned principal judge, family court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, and argument advanced on their behalf, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, has not succeeded to prove and establish the ground of cruelty against the defendant, as such he is not entitled to decree as claimed for and the suit was accordingly dismissed, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband: 13. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned family court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. That the learned court has not taken into consideration the behavior of the respondent towards the appellant and his parents that it was not cordial and she became rude, arrogant and she developed a temperament of insulting the appellant, which affected not only the appellant but also the well-being of the family of the appellant. 15. Submission has been made that the impugned judgment is vitiated on account of non-consideration of pleadings as well as evidences adduced on behalf of parties in true perspective. 16. Further submission has been made that the learned additional family court has failed to appreciate that the appellant has all along pleaded and proved that the respondent-wife has been throughout carrying neglecting behavior towards the appellant and parents. 17. Submission has been made that because of ill-behavior of the respondent, the appellant-husband had to leave the job, which he was doing in Bansal Classes in the year 2014. 18. Furthermore, the learned additional family court did not consider the fact that due to torturous behavior of the respondent, the father of the appellant had to undergo by-pass surgery in the year 2015. 19. 18. Furthermore, the learned additional family court did not consider the fact that due to torturous behavior of the respondent, the father of the appellant had to undergo by-pass surgery in the year 2015. 19. It has been submitted that the appellant has been able to prove the factum of cruelty towards the respondent-wife as also the desertion but without appreciating the evidence adduced by the appellant, the suit has been dismissed, which requires interference by this Court. 20. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty has not been taken into consideration in right perspective even though the fact about living separately has well been established. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from perversity, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent: 22. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment. The learned Additional Principal Judge has considered the issue of cruelty and thereafter came to the conclusion that no evidence has been adduced to establish either and as such has dismissed the suit. 23. It has been contended that the allegation so far of commission of cruelty is considered, the ground has been raised before the learned Principal Judge that the respondent-wife is not taking care of the in-laws, which is totally false and baseless. 24. It is submitted that at the time of marriage dowry was given as per the capacity of their parents. But after 3-4 months of marriage the in-laws started torturing, physically and mentally, for fulfillment of dowry. 25. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if on that pretext, the factum of cruelty has not been found to be established, based upon which the decree of divorce has been refused to be granted, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from error. Analysis: 26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Additional Principal Judge in the impugned judgment. 27. Analysis: 26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Additional Principal Judge in the impugned judgment. 27. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty i.e., by filing an application under Section 13 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed and decided against the plaintiff-appellant. 28. The evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. For ready reference, the evidences led on behalf of the parties are being referred as under: 29. P.W-Dinesh Kumar Thakur , the appelant himself, has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was married with respondent Sunila Thakur on 24-06-2012 at Katras, Dhanbad as per Hindu Rites and customs. After marriage he resided with his wife in Bikarbandh, Dhanbad and Noida. However, out of the wedlock the couple was blessed with no child. At the time of marriage petitioner was working as Frenchise support Manager in Private firm Bansal Classes Noida. It was known to the respondent and her family members that he is single person to look after his family and on being acquainted with all the facts the respondent and her family members agreed to marry with him. Marriage was solemnized without any dowry because he was against the dowry customs. He has further stated that after marriage respondent used to quarrel daily with his parents while living in Dhanbad. Due to harassing by the respondent mentally her parents fell ill and his father had to under-go By-pass surgery in year 2015 and his mother was implanted pacemaker in year 2014. Respondent also quarreled with him. He was asked by the respondent to end all relationship with his parents. After 15 days of marriage he took his wife in Noida but the behavior of respondent did not change and her cruel behavior was continued towards his parent and him. It is stated that the respondent is very rude and short tempered lady. She used to quarrel with him on very trivial grounds. He tried his level best to resolve the dispute but in vain. Now all relationship as husband and wife have gone ended due to cruel behavior of respondent. He was tortured by the respondent for the last six years. She used to quarrel with him on very trivial grounds. He tried his level best to resolve the dispute but in vain. Now all relationship as husband and wife have gone ended due to cruel behavior of respondent. He was tortured by the respondent for the last six years. Respondent got pregnant in year 2017 but he was shocked when he came to know that fetus got aborted without his permission. On 28.10.2018 the respondent and her family members abused in filthy language and also assaulted upon him and due to cruel behavior of respondent now there is no option left except to give her divorce. In cross-examination, he stated that marriage solemnized between both parties with consent of both families. He came to house late due to which his wife asked him the cause of delay and she suspiciously told that he has extra marital affair with another lady. When his wife went to her maika lastly has not been written in his affidavit nor in his petition. His wife has filed a case for maintenance and u/s 498A IPC against him. He cannot say the date and day when he was assaulted upon by his wife rather she does the same regularly. He has not produced the prescription of doctor showing that he was beaten by his wife and scratched with her nail. In this regard he has not given any information to police station or any other place. He has not informed to his mother-in-law that he was treated with cruelty by his wife. It is not true that he did not provide maintenance to his wife and also did not fulfill the daily basis need. He took drink occasionally. It is not true that he used to assault upon his wife. Now he cannot restore the conjugal life with his wife. 30. PW-2-Mahendra Thakur, is father of the petitioner who supported the evidence of PW-1 in examination-in-chief. In cross he stated that after marriage he had taken his daughter-in-law in Noida where he resided for 20-25 days. During the said period some altercation took place between both the parties occasionally. From marriage since filing of suit his daughter-in-law spent most of time in her maika. When she came to Noida and thereafter to his house, he cannot say the date and day. His elder son along with his family resides with him in Dhanbad. During the said period some altercation took place between both the parties occasionally. From marriage since filing of suit his daughter-in-law spent most of time in her maika. When she came to Noida and thereafter to his house, he cannot say the date and day. His elder son along with his family resides with him in Dhanbad. Gall-bllader and uterus was removed of his wife in year 1980. His wife is patient of low blood pressure and he was patient of high blood pressure and diabetes since year 2000. The averment made in para-7 of his affidavit is Mistake of fact. He tried to resolve the dispute between husband and wife. He does not want to keep the respondent along with him as because she demanded partition of his house. He has not submitted document of complaint made in Mahila Thana. Neither he nor his son had provided maintenance to respondent. He registered his shop in the name of elder son. 31. Pw-3 - Md. Aarif , is an independent witness who supported the evidence of PW-1 in examination-in-chief. In cross he stated that he knows to Dinesh Thakur for last 9-10 years. Dinesh Thakur is residing in Noida for last three years. The distance between the houses of petitioner, the appellant herein, and him is 12 Km. Dinesh Thakur is working in the company in Factory in operational department. His department is separate from the department of Dinesh Thakur but they do the work same place. He used to go to the house of plaintiff twice in the week. When he visited to the house of Dinesh Thakur, he met his wife also who serves him tea. He has not attended the marriage of the Dinesh Thakur. The quarrel occurred between both parties was told to him by plaintiff. He also has seen quarreling to both parties in the night. 32. On behalf of respondent-wife also witnesses have been examined. 33. DW-1-Sushila Thakur, is respondent herself who has stated in the examination-in-chief that she was married with Dinesh Thakur on 24-06-2012 as per Hindu Rites and customs. At the time of marriage dowry was given as per their capacity. After marriage in Sasural she resided peacefully only 3-4 months and thereafter due to demand of dowry of rupees eight lakh her in-laws started torturing her physically and mentally. In the year 2000 her brother gave Rs. At the time of marriage dowry was given as per their capacity. After marriage in Sasural she resided peacefully only 3-4 months and thereafter due to demand of dowry of rupees eight lakh her in-laws started torturing her physically and mentally. In the year 2000 her brother gave Rs. one lakh cash to the mother of petitioner-husband and thereafter again Rs. 50,000/- was given to the account of petitioner-husband by her younger brother Rakesh Kumar. Compromise took place and thereafter in the month of December 2016 she came to Noida along with husband. But there also he was abused and tortured in drunken state by the appellant-husband. In March 2017 she was pregnant but in the state of pregnancy she was beaten which caused miscarriage. In this regard she was treated in the clinic of Dr. Asha Ray. She has further stated that on 20-08-2018 in the night 10.30 PM after being beaten she was ousted by her husband from his flat and she came to her maika alone from Noida to Dhanbad. On 28th October, 2018 he came to her sasural with her mother and Bhabhi but in sasural her in- laws demanded rupees eight lakh as dowry and her mother and Bhabi was there manhandled by her in laws. On 28-10- 2018 she gave written application in Mahila Thana Dhanbad but no action was taken and then she filed the complaint case bearing C.P. case no-210/19 which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad. She has also filed maintenance case against her husband. In cross- examination, she has stated that Rs. ten lakh cash and for furniture Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by his brother Rajesh Tiwari. Her brother is Asstt. Engineer in BCCL. After marriage she had gone to Noida with her husband. It is false to say that her husband often remained out of station for his work. His husband used to go to his office in the morning and returned back in the evening. It is true that she has filed a complaint case No-210/19 against her husband and mother-in-law Gayatri Thakur which is pending in Dhanbad. Complain case was filed by her after receiving the notice of divorce case. She denied the allegation of quarreling with the parents of husband daily. She has not filed any case against her husband in any police station or court in Noida. Complain case was filed by her after receiving the notice of divorce case. She denied the allegation of quarreling with the parents of husband daily. She has not filed any case against her husband in any police station or court in Noida. It is true that at the time of abortion her husband was not present in Dhanbad. She has not made any complain for the incident occurred on 20-08-2018. 34. DW-2 is brother of the respondent who has supported the evidence of DW-1 in his chief examination. In cross- examination he stated that he borne all the expenses of the marriage of his sister. He is employee in BCCL and his monthly salary is RS. 50,000/-. It is not true that after being acknowledged of this case his sisters has filed C.P. case no- 210/19. At the time of the abortion of his sister neither appellant nor his family members were present. It is not true that without the consent of respondent got the fetus aborted. He has no knowledge that his sister put upon pressure to her husband to reside separately from the family members of her husband. His sister was treated but he cannot say the name of doctor. It is not true that his sister has threatened her in laws to implicate in false case by committing suicide. 35. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties on the issue of perversity, needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [ (2001) 1 SCC 501 ] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1966 Cal 31 ] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341 ] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.”” 36. Appellant-husband has sought relief on the ground of cruelty so first of all this Court is to consider on the point as to what is cruelty and whether the same was proved by appellant or not. 37. Cruelty- The concept of cruelty has been summarized in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269) as under :- "The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. 38. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. 39. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. 39. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce case has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of other. 40. It is true that the term "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether actually the cruelty has been committed or not ? 41. It is well settled that the conduct should be so grave and weighty as to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant. It must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. The cumulative conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background of the parties has to be examined to reach conclusion the whether the conduct, complained of amounts to cruelty or not? Ordinarily cruelty means danger to life and limb of a spouse from other which makes it practically impossible to lead conjugal life with other. 42. The “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. 43. This Court deems it fit and proper to take into consideration the meaning of „cruelty? as has been held by the Hon?ble Apex Court in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105 wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon?ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 44. According to the Hon?ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations”. The Hon?ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. 44. According to the Hon?ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.” 45. The Hon?ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty it is important for the court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 46. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337 , the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The Hon?ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”. 47. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon?ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself. 48. The Hon?ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742 , has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. 49. It is, thus, evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment passed in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (supra) has been pleased to lay down that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce. 50. It is settled that in order to prove cruelty appellant was required to prove that the act of respondent-wife was of such nature that it was improbable for him to live with defendant and his life and limb was not safe in the company of defendant and with a view to ascertain to untie the matrimonial bond, it is required that marital life of the parties is to be seen as a whole. 51. In order to come to such conclusion, this Court has considered the evidences of the witnesses as recorded in the impugned judgment. 52. As per evidence of witnesses it appears that that witnesses produced on behalf of appellant-husband including himself it is evident that after marriage was solemnized on 24-06- 2012 whereafter the respondent-wife came to her sasural and she resided in Katras Dhanbad, Bekarbandh Dhanbad and Noida where appellant-husband was doing job. Witnesses have further deposed that from the very beginning of marriage the behavior of respondent-wife towards appellant and his family members was not good. 53. Her relations towards the parents of appellant were not cordial. She misbehaved and shouted on a very flimsy ground and due to cruel behaviour of respondent, the parents of appellant had to undergo by-pass surgery. Witnesses have further deposed that from the very beginning of marriage the behavior of respondent-wife towards appellant and his family members was not good. 53. Her relations towards the parents of appellant were not cordial. She misbehaved and shouted on a very flimsy ground and due to cruel behaviour of respondent, the parents of appellant had to undergo by-pass surgery. But all these allegations leveled against the respondent has been denied rather she has deposed that she was subjected to torture by the in-laws. The appellant in his testimony has also accepted the fact that the respondent-wife has filed complaint case, which also suggests that the respondent-wife had complained of being tortured by her husband. 54. Further, as per the evidence available on record it appears that there is general and omnibus allegation. Neither any specific date has been mentioned as to when and in which manner the family members of the appellant has been tortured and so far allegation of insult by the respondent- wife in public place is concerned, no independent witness has been examined to prove this facts neither the name of such persons or friends has been given in front of whom the in-laws and husband has been insulted by respondent-wife. The appellant in the petitioner has specifically stated that he was beaten by his wife but no injury report has been annexed to support such claim nor for which incidence he has made any complaint before the police. Making bizarre allegation upon the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband has stated that due to ill-behaviour of the respondent-wife his father has to undergo by-pass surgery of heart, however, the father of the appellant in cross-examination has stated that he is a patient of diabetics and blood-pressure since 1975, so this also has no leg to stand. The father of the appellant (PW 2) has deposed in this testimony he does not want to keep his daughter-in-law with him. Therefore, from the testimony of the witnesses, it is apparent that it is the husband and father-in-law of the respondent-wife who does not want to keep the respondent. 55. The father of the appellant (PW 2) has deposed in this testimony he does not want to keep his daughter-in-law with him. Therefore, from the testimony of the witnesses, it is apparent that it is the husband and father-in-law of the respondent-wife who does not want to keep the respondent. 55. The respondent all along has denied the allegation leveled against her rather she has consistent in deposing that she was subjected to torture by her in-laws and husband for fulfilling the demand of dowry for which she has filed complaint against them and used to torture her, therefore, she has to live at her parental house (maike). 56. Even though the respondent has stated that she is ready to live with her husband but the appellant has refused to lead conjugal life with her. Furthermore, the respondent-wife has made allegation that in a drunken state her husband used to beat her. The husband in cross-examination has admitted the fact that occasionally he used to take drink. 57. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has taken all these facts into consideration and came to the conclusion that appelant has not been able to prove his case against the respondent of cruelty so as to grant the decree of divorce and accordingly, dismissed the suit. 58. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that since the appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment as per the discussion made hereinabove, as such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned family court. 59. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 60. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.