JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman) Even today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant/wife. Yesterday i.e., on 21.01.2026, we have heard Mr.Shyam Sunder Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent/husband. We have perused the record. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 29.07.2015 in O.P.No.989 of 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, the appellant/wife preferred the present appeal. 3. Appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband. Their marriage was performed on 20.04.1977 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on 19.02.1978. 4. Respondent/husband has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the appellant/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending that both the appellant and respondent lived together in the house bearing No.14-1-429, situated at Aghapura, Hyderabad, which was purchased by the mother of the respondent/husband. His father died during his infancy. Appellant/wife worked as a teacher. Differences arose between the appellant and the respondent as a result of her adamant attitude. She left the company of the respondent/husband and lived along with the minor child. She used to visit the respondent frequently now and then and abuse the mother of the respondent in filthy language. Appellant herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.3113 of 1985 on the file of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for injunction restraining the respondent and his mother from alienating the said house bearing No.14-1-429, situated at Aghapura, Hyderabad, which was acquired by his father. However, the said suit was dismissed on 31.01.1990. She did not prefer an appeal challenging the said Judgment and it has attained finality. 5. It is further contended that the appellant trespassed into the said house despite dismissal of the said suit and tried to dispossess them. She has also damaged the window panes of the house. Therefore, mother of the respondent was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.1245 of 1986 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing her from the said house. The said suit was decreed. It has attained finality. 6. Respondent/husband has filed a petition vide O.P.No.446 of 1985 against the appellant herein seeking dissolution of marriage. The said suit was decreed. It has attained finality. 6. Respondent/husband has filed a petition vide O.P.No.446 of 1985 against the appellant herein seeking dissolution of marriage. Appellant has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide O.P.No.449 of 1985 against the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. O.P.No.446 of 1985 was dismissed, whereas, O.P.No.449 of 1985 was decreed. Respondent preferred an appeal vide C.M.A.No.535 of 1988 aggrieved by the order of dismissal and it was dismissed for default for non-payment of process. 7. Appellant has again filed a petition vide O.P.No.52 of 1991 for dissolution of marriage. She failed to comply with the decree in O.P.No.449 of 1985. According to the respondent, there has not been resumption of cohabitation between the respondent and appellant ever since 20.04.1984 or 16.12.1987. Thus, appellant deserted the respondent on 20.04.1984. According to the respondent, appellant subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. Appellant filed the counter denying the said allegations and contending that she never deserted the respondent as claimed by him. She has also narrated the facts with regard to the filing of the aforesaid suit and aforesaid O.Ps. 8. Basing on the said pleadings, learned Family Court framed the following points for determination: 1) Whether the appellant/wife treated the respondent/husband with cruelty? 2) Whether the appellant/wife deserted the respondent/husband for more than two years? 3) Whether the respondent/husband is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant/wife? 9. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, respondent/husband examined himself as PW.1 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.7 documents. To disprove the said allegations, appellant examined herself as RW.1 and she has filed Exs.R.1 and R.2. On consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, vide the impugned order, learned Family Court dissolved the marriage of the parties holding that respondent failed to prove the desertion, however, proved the cruelty. Challenging the said order, appellant/wife preferred the present appeal. Vide the order dated 14.10.2015, this Court having admitted the appeal granted interim suspension of the impugned order. 10. As discussed supra, despite granting opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 11. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that both the appellant and respondent are staying separately since last 14 years. 10. As discussed supra, despite granting opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 11. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that both the appellant and respondent are staying separately since last 14 years. Appellant deserted him on 20.04.1984 itself. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion of the parties. The only son of the parties is settled down in United States of America. He is in touch with the appellant regularly and he is also in touch with the respondent now and then, whenever he comes to India. 12. Perusal of record would reveal that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was performed on 20.04.1977. They were blessed with a male child on 19.02.1978. Disputes arose between them from the year 1977 itself. Appellant has filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.3113 of 1985 against the respondent and his mother seeking injunction restraining the respondent and his mother from alienating the house bearing No.14-1-429, Aghapura, Hyderabad, belongs to the father of the respondent. The suit in O.S.No.3113 of 1985 filed by the appellant was dismissed and she did not prefer any appeal and it has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the father of the respondent died during his childhood. 13. It is also not in dispute that respondent’s mother filed a suit in O.S.No.1245 of 1986 against the appellant herein seeking injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing her and the respondent from the said house. Thereafter, the suit filed by the mother of the respondent vide O.S.No.1245 of 1986 was decreed and the appellant has not preferred any appeal. It has attained finality. 14. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petition filed by the respondent vide O.P.No.446 of 1985 seeking dissolution of marriage was dismissed. However, petition filed by the appellant vide O.P.No.449 of 1985 seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The appeal preferred by the respondent vide C.M.A.No.535 of 1988, challenging the order in O.P.No.446 of 1985, was dismissed for non-payment of process. Therefore, order in O.P.No.446 of 1985 attained finality. 15. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the appellant has filed a petition vide O.P.No.52 of 1991 against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage and she withdrew the same. Therefore, order in O.P.No.446 of 1985 attained finality. 15. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the appellant has filed a petition vide O.P.No.52 of 1991 against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage and she withdrew the same. However, she has contended that at the instance of the respondent she has filed the said O.P. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes between the appellant and respondent from the year 1984 onwards. 16. Perusal of the aforesaid evidence would reveal that both the appellant and the respondent are staying separately with effect from the year 1984. 17. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 . 18. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of "cruelty" or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration as observed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita , 2023 AIR (SC) 2144. 19. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , (2006) 4 SCC 558 . 20. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. Each case has to be decided on its own merits as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , (2006) 4 SCC 558 . 20. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to cruelty or not. 21. As discussed supra, vide the impugned order, learned Family Court specifically held that the respondent failed to prove the desertion. However the respondent did not prefer any appeal challenging the said finding. With regard to the cruel acts, according to the respondent, appellant filed the aforesaid suits and petitions against the respondent and which amounts to cruel acts. Except that he has not alleged any cruel acts against the appellant. Filing of the aforesaid civil suits and original petitions by the appellant against the respondent and his mother does not amount to cruel acts. 22. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, appellant, only as a next friend of her minor son, has filed the suit in O.S.No.3113 of 1985 against the respondent and respondent’s mother seeking injunction restraining them from alienating the said house and the same was dismissed. However, the suit in O.S.No.1245 of 1986 filed by the respondent’s mother against the appellant seeking injunction restraining the appellant from dispossessing the said house was decreed. Appellant did not prefer any appeal. 23. O.P. filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage was dismissed and O.P. filed by the appellant seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. Appeal filed by the respondent challenging the order in O.P.No.446 of 1985 was dismissed. Therefore, filing of the aforesaid suits and O.Ps. does not amount to cruelty as alleged by the respondent. 24. It is also apt to note that respondent was aged about 66 years at the time of filing of the aforesaid O.P.No.989 of 2012 and he was pensioner. Appellant was aged about 60 years and she is a retired Government Servant. At the age of 66 years, respondent sought dissolution of marriage. Without considering the said aspects, vide the impugned order, dated 29.07.2015, learned Family Court granted dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects. Appellant was aged about 60 years and she is a retired Government Servant. At the age of 66 years, respondent sought dissolution of marriage. Without considering the said aspects, vide the impugned order, dated 29.07.2015, learned Family Court granted dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Family Court Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2015 in O.P.No.989 of 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. Consequently, O.P.No.989 of 2012 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.