JUDGMENT: (P. Sree Sudha, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 16.09.2022 in H.M.O.P.No.09 of 2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at Manthani. 2. The appellant herein/husband had filed an application against the respondent/wife before the trial Court vide H.M.O.P.No.09 of 2015 under Section 13 (1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act , for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Appellant/husband examined himself as P.W.1 before the trial Court and also got examined P.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. Respondent/wife was examined herself as R.W.1 and also got examined R.W.2 on her behalf, but no documents were filed on their behalf. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant/husband preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant/husband stated that the parents of the appellant herein were having three sons. The appellant herein was the elder son and he was working in the Indian Army, his first younger brother was also working in Army and also married and his second younger brother was pursuing Post Graduation. After marriage the respondent/wife joined the appellant parents’ house at Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, on the same day and the marriage was consummated. At the time of marriage, appellant was working as Rank Naik in Artillery Regiment of the Indian Army at Jammu Kashmir, as such he kept her with his parents at Godavarikhani. He also stated that respondent was not doing any household works during her stay at Godavarikhani and sitting idle. She was scolding that appellant had not purchased any gold ornaments for her, as such she committed a sin by marrying him and she married him at the instance of her parents. Respondent/wife refused to stay with his parents and left the house in August, 2009 without any reason and returned again after lot of persuasions of the appellant and his family members and after conducting several mediations by elders in January, 2010 and again left him in February, 2010. Later, she joined him at Faridkot, Punjab in the Month of May, 2010, but left him again in January, 2011, along with her brother when she was conceived. Respondent was scolding the appellant and his family members in filthy language. Later, she joined him at Faridkot, Punjab in the Month of May, 2010, but left him again in January, 2011, along with her brother when she was conceived. Respondent was scolding the appellant and his family members in filthy language. In February, 2011, appellant requested her parents to send her with him to lead happy marital life, but they refused for the same and lodged a complaint with the Police under Section 498-A of IPC . 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/husband further stated that appellant got issued a legal notice to the respondent/wife on 06.06.2011, calling her to join the matrimonial home and respondent/wife gave reply notice on 17.06.2011 and he in turn sent the rejoinder on 16.07.2011. The respondent/wife gave birth to a male child by name Master Varun on 20.08.2011, but it was not informed to the appellant either by her or her parents and he came to know about the same in September, 2011. When the appellant/husband visited the respondent’s parents’ house, they have not allowed him or his family members to perform the naming ceremony of Master Varun. Appellant/husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 in November, 2011, before the learned District Judge, Faridkot, vide case No.72 of 2011, for restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving summons, respondent/wife agreed to join with him at the place of his work at Faridkot in May, 2012 and stayed with him till January, 2013 and went to her parents’ house for Sankranthi on 10.01.2013, as such he had withdrawn the case on 14.01.2013. In April, 2013, when appellant requested the respondent to come back, she refused. Later, he came to know through her relatives that she gave birth to a female child by name Varsha on 13.05.2013. He had no knowledge regarding the birth of the child, as the respondent or her parents did not inform to him. When he transferred to Assam in the month of January, 2014, respondent refused to join him. The elders of the caste reconciled between them, as they have two children, she joined him with two children in the month of October, 2014. Respondent/wife threatened his parents on 16.11.2014 and drunken hair oil, when his parents joined her in the hospital, her parents came to the hospital and took her to their house along with two children. The elders of the caste reconciled between them, as they have two children, she joined him with two children in the month of October, 2014. Respondent/wife threatened his parents on 16.11.2014 and drunken hair oil, when his parents joined her in the hospital, her parents came to the hospital and took her to their house along with two children. When he tried to contact the respondent, she refused to talk with him on phone. She also threatened his parents by false complaint. This attitude of the respondent, clearly shows that she was not intended to lead marital life with the appellant. He also took care of the respondent and children and used to keep them happy, but respondent without any responsibility or love deserted him. Appellant/husband made all his best efforts, but the respondent/wife failed to discharge her duties as wife, as such there is no scope of continuation of marriage and their marriage was irretrievably broken down. Respondent/wife treated the appellant/husband with cruelty and it caused a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it will be harmful and dangerous to live with her. Respondent/wife deserted the appellant/husband on 16.11.2014 and therefore he filed the O.P for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, but the trial Court without appreciating the facts properly, dismissed the application. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant/husband mainly contended that the citation relied upon by the trial Court is not applicable to the present case. While he was discharging his duties at Assam, respondent/wife gave complaint to the Police and they in turn registered the same as F.I.R.No.10 of 2015. She treated him and his family members with cruelty on several occasions. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 6. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 7. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was performed on 20.05.2009 and they are blessed with two children. There is no dispute regarding marriage and paternity of the two children. Respondent/wife in her counter denied all the allegations made by the appellant/husband and stated that she intended to live with him as he retired from Army. 7. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was performed on 20.05.2009 and they are blessed with two children. There is no dispute regarding marriage and paternity of the two children. Respondent/wife in her counter denied all the allegations made by the appellant/husband and stated that she intended to live with him as he retired from Army. She further stated that parents of the brothers of the appellant were harassing her for demand of dowry and she also subsequently stated that if the appellant undertakes to take care of them properly, she is ready to join him. 8. Perusal of the record clearly shows that there were differences between the couple from the beginning of the marriage i.e., from 2009 till filing of the case in the year 2015. Appellant/husband stated that respondent/wife was not staying with him or his parents and left him on several occasions, as such he brought her back with the mediation of elders. In fact, he also filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving of the summons, with the intervention of elders, when she joined him, he had withdrawn the case. Even afterwards, when she deserted him, he filed O.P for dissolution of marriage, whereas, respondent/wife contended that her parents gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant/husband as dowry. Apart from that gave Rs.2,00,000/- for domestic articles and also gave three Tulas of gold and 25 Tulas of silver. Though the parents of appellant/husband were harassing her for demand of dowry, she tolerated the same, but finally driven her out from home on 16.12.2014, as such she gave complaint before the Police and the same was registered as Cr.No.10 of 2015 and also filed D.V.C.No.11 of 2015, against the appellant and his family members. She denied the other allegations made by the appellant/husband. 9. Perusal of the Order dated 08.02.2019 in D.V.C.No.11 of 2015, shows that appellant/husband resigned to his Army job and getting pension of Rs.12,000/- per month, as such the concerned Court granted protection to her under Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act and also directed the appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the children in total Rs.11,000/- per month towards their maintenance. There was exchange of legal notices between the parties. There was exchange of legal notices between the parties. In the legal notice dated 06.06.2011, issued to the respondent/wife by the appellant/husband, he stated that respondent left his society and residing with his parents without any sufficient cause. In a rejoinder given by the appellant/husband, he stated that he was ready and willing to take back his wife. The main contention of the appellant herein is that respondent/wife was abusing him and his family members in filthy language. She was not attending any household works and she was leaving to her parent’s house without any sufficient cause. He made his best efforts to get her back for several times. In fact, he also filed O.P for restitution of conjugal rights. When the respondent/wife joined him with the intervention of the elders, he had withdrawn the same. They are blessed with two children, even afterwards she left him without any reason and even after issuing legal notice she has not joined him, as such he filed O.P for divorce. He mainly contended that respondent/wife made an attempt to commit suicide by drinking hair oil, as such there is threat to his life and it amounts to cruelty on her part. Whereas, respondent/wife contended that it was hair die, but not hair oil. She admitted that she attempted to commit suicide when appellant and his family members harassed her and necked her out of their house along with children. She also stated that after the attempt to commit suicide, both of them are living separately i.e., from 2014 onwards. She stated that appellant was retired from service, as such now it is possible for them to live together. She also admitted that she along with the appellant lived together for a period of two years in the entire marital life. In the Cross-examination of P.W.1 he himself admitted that he got registered his name in the matrimonial website and he specifically stated that he is not willing to take her back even if she is willing to join with him as his entire family was jailed because of her, but he is ready to take his children. It was elicited from the Cross-examination of P.W.1 that he had not paid any maintenance to his wife and children, but added that she has not furnished account details, as such he has not paid the amount. It was elicited from the Cross-examination of P.W.1 that he had not paid any maintenance to his wife and children, but added that she has not furnished account details, as such he has not paid the amount. He has not preferred any appeal on the D.V.C. As the appellant/husband came before the Court for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, it is for him to establish cruelty either physical or mental cruelty. 10. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh , [ (2007) 4 SCC 511 ] , the apex Court relying on its earlier judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli 2, (2006) 4 SCC 558 observed certain incidents of cruelty in paragraph No.101 which are as under:- 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (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. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to 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. 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. 11. In this case, admittedly appellant was working in Army and residing in faraway places. Initially, respondent was residing with his parents and later she joined him at his place of work. Though there are disturbances between them, they are blessed with two children. The trial Court observed that he provoked her to commit suicide. She attempted to commit suicide only once and single act of cruelty is not a ground for grant of divorce. Appellant herein registered his name in the matrimonial site even without granting of divorce. This fact supports the version of the respondent/wife that he intended to perform another marriage for dowry. Even if he comes on leave, he was not coming to her house and staying with his parents only and it is the fact that he retired from the Army and thus respondent/wife stated that now they can live together. The trial Court considering all the facts rightly dismissed the petition. The object of the family Court is not to disrupt the family, but try to protect the union of the family. The allegation made by the appellant against the respondent neither amounts to physical or mental cruelty and the trial Court already observed that attempt to commit suicide is a single act of cruelty and on that ground divorce cannot be granted. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the Order of the trial Court and it needs no interference. 12. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Order of the trial Court in H.M.O.P.No.09 of 2015, dated 16.09.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed.