JUDGMENT : R.Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by Shri Yogesh Kumar, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Hazaribagh in Matrimonial Suit No. 71 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent (respondent herein as well) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 09.04.2003 as per Hindu rites and customs and after the marriage the petitioner started residing at her matrimonial house at village Dhowaiya, P.O. Bariyath, P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribagh, where she resided peacefully for a few months. During the stay at her matrimonial house, the respondent started physical and mental torture upon the petitioner for non-fulfillment of an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house. Since the matter was pacified at the instance of the parents and relations of the petitioner, she returned back to her matrimonial house, but the torture upon the petitioner continued unabated. It has been stated that the respondent after getting drunk used to assault the petitioner. A Panchayati was held and a direction was given by the Panches to the respondent not to commit assault upon the petitioner. The couple were thereafter blessed with four sons who all are studying in school. It has been stated that in the year 2018, the uncle (Mausa Sasur) of the petitioner came who after some time started committing torture upon the petitioner and had also on several occasions attempted to establish physical relationship with the petitioner. On refusal to accede to such demands, the petitioner was subjected to torture and she was compelled to take poison, but was somehow saved and later on the petitioner had given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh on 18.07.2020. The respondent had deserted the petitioner from 20.12.2018 and since then the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately. On refusal to accede to such demands, the petitioner was subjected to torture and she was compelled to take poison, but was somehow saved and later on the petitioner had given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh on 18.07.2020. The respondent had deserted the petitioner from 20.12.2018 and since then the petitioner and the respondent are residing separately. The respondent never visited the petitioner and also did not provide any maintenance to the petitioner. The respondent after ousting the petitioner has kept the children with him. The continuous cruelty committed upon the petitioner by the respondent and her desertion has led to the filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage. Despite valid service of summons, the respondent did not appear to contest the suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte. 5. The petitioner has examined three witnesses in support of her case including herself. 6. P.W.1 Manju Devi is the petitioner who has stated that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 09.04.2003 and after marriage she started residing at her matrimonial house and for 6-7 months she was properly treated by the respondent and her in-laws. After the said period, a demand of Rs. 1 Lakh was made as dowry by the respondent and her in-laws and she was subjected to mental and physical torture. She had informed her parents about the torture being suffered by her at which attempts were made to reconcile the dispute but they were abused and subjected to assault by her in-laws who expressed their intention of not keeping her with them. The mental and physical torture continued unabated but she somehow tolerated such conduct. In the meantime, she gave birth to four children who all were kept in the custody of her in-laws and she was also not allowed to even meet them. Whenever she protested, the respondent, in a drunken state, used to brutally assault her and oust her from her matrimonial house and she used to come back to her parents' place. After a conciliation being effected at the behest of her family members and neighbours, she used to go back to her matrimonial house. The uncle of the respondent, namely Jugeshwar Bhuiyan, who also used to reside at her matrimonial house, used to torture her and make sexual advances and when she protested, the respondent assaulted her by putting the entire blame upon her. The uncle of the respondent, namely Jugeshwar Bhuiyan, who also used to reside at her matrimonial house, used to torture her and make sexual advances and when she protested, the respondent assaulted her by putting the entire blame upon her. On 01.12.2018 the respondent in a drunken state had assaulted her and ousted her from her matrimonial house and she returned back after a compromise was effected by the Panchayat on 02.12.2018. However, the returning back to her matrimonial house did not change the scenario as the respondent and her in-laws continued with their torture and ill-behaviour. She has stated that on 20.12.2018, she was ousted from her matrimonial house and since then she is staying at her parents' place. In spite of the directions of the Panchayat on 21.01.2019, the respondent did not take her back to her matrimonial house. 7. P.W.2 Modi Bhuyian is the uncle of the petitioner who in his sworn statement has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. 8. P.W.3 Geeta Devi is the aunt of the petitioner whose evidence is also a reflection of what has been stated by P.W.1. 9. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been able to highlight the fact that right from the time of her marriage she had been subjected to mental and physical torture. Several instances have been given with respect to the manner of torture. The petitioner was even prevented by the respondent and his family members to meet her children. The torture committed upon the petitioner has been categorized in the Panchayat document wherein a compromise was entered into. The assertion made by the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondent as despite service of notice, he had not appeared to contest the suit. The factum of desertion has also been proved by the petitioner as after her ouster and a compromise, neither the respondent had made any efforts to take her back nor any maintenance amount has been paid to the petitioner. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and have also perused the trial court record. 11. The Suit has been preferred by the petitioner for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined in the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and have also perused the trial court record. 11. The Suit has been preferred by the petitioner for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. ‘Cruelty’ has not been defined in the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. The concept of cruelty has evolved with time and in this context we may refer to the case of Shobha Rani Vrs. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105 wherein at paragraph-4 it has been held as follows:- “4. Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words “treated the petitioner with cruelty”. The word “cruelty” has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental the problem presents difficulty. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, 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, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.” 12. We may also refer to the case of A. Jayachandra vrs. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 wherein at paragraphs-10 to 12 it has been held as follows:- “10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. We may also refer to the case of A. Jayachandra vrs. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 wherein at paragraphs-10 to 12 it has been held as follows:- “10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression “cruelty” has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression “cruelty” has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.) 12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.” 13. The petitioner in the application as well as in her evidence as P.W.1 has resorted to making certain allegations of mental and physical cruelty committed upon her. Initially, allegation was made of demand of Rs. 1 Lakh but slowly it veered towards other reasons including the sexual advances made by the uncle of the respondent for which the petitioner was blamed and consequently tortured. Despite the petitioner projecting a picture of continuous marital disharmony with the respondent, but at the same time during her marital life she had given birth to 4 sons which runs contrary to the assertion of the petitioner. So far as the Panchayat document is concerned, the same also notes the conduct of the petitioner and the essence of the compromise reveal a marital discord which is not to such an extent that it would be an impossibility for the petitioner to continue to stay with the respondent. The allegation does not come within the purview of cruelty as apart from the contradictory stance no supportive document has been brought on record to substantiate the merciless assault adopted by the respondent and his family members. The allegation does not come within the purview of cruelty as apart from the contradictory stance no supportive document has been brought on record to substantiate the merciless assault adopted by the respondent and his family members. Save and accept a complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh which also has not been produced, the petitioner had not taken any steps if at all what has been stated by her is true and all these factors do not constitute cruelty meted out to the petitioner by the respondent. 14. So far as desertion is concerned, the petitioner has failed to prove that animus deserendi was present or that it was willful on the part of the respondent. Vague statements in the petition only reveals about the claim of desertion to be in an embryonic stage and absence of rebuttal from the side of the respondent would not muster any strength to consider such plea. 15. On both the grounds the suit was preferred, the petitioner has been unable to make out a case of dissolution of marriage and since the learned trial court has come to an appropriate conclusion after considering the entire aspects of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by Shri Yogesh Kumar, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Hazaribagh in Matrimonial Suit No. 71 of 2021 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) closed.