JUDGMENT: K.Lakshman, J. 1. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant and the respondent. We have perused the record. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2014 in FCOP No.674 of 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, at Secunderabad. 3. The appellant is the husband, and the respondent is the wife. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 11.02.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. They lived and lead their marital life happily till 2009. They were blessed with a male boy. The appellant was working as an agent in an automobile shop and was drawing a handsome salary. Out of his income, he purchased all household articles and also bought gold and silver for the respondent as per her wishes. At the respondent’s request, the appellant accepted her proposal to join a job as a school teacher. However, thereafter, there was a change in the attitude of the respondent. She started neglecting both their son and the appellant. The respondent used to shout at their son without any reason and began avoiding the appellant by refusing to acknowledge their presence at home. Whenever the appellant questioned her attitude, she would quarrel with him over petty issues without any justification. The respondent failed to look after household work and even stopped cooking and caring for the well-being of their son. The respondent left the matrimonial home from 14.05.2012 to 30.05.2012 without informing the appellant. When questioned, the respondent adamantly stated that she had gone for training from her school. 4. Despite repeated requests made by the appellant, the respondent did not change her behavior. She exhibited abnormal conduct such as shouting in a high pitch, uttering meaningless words, and causing self-injury. Even when the appellant, on the advice of elders, approached the respondent to resume cohabitation, she refused and instead started cursing him. The appellant was mentally exhausted due to the respondent’s conduct and was no longer in a position to live in constant fear. 5. Respondent filed counter denying the said allegations. It is alleged that the appellant was running an automobile business as an owner and earning handsome amounts. He never spent any money for his family. The respondent was residing in Working Women’s hostel. 5. Respondent filed counter denying the said allegations. It is alleged that the appellant was running an automobile business as an owner and earning handsome amounts. He never spent any money for his family. The respondent was residing in Working Women’s hostel. Since the appellant was not at all paying her any maintenance, as such, respondent started earning for herself to meet her regular needs right from the date of marriage. Appellant used to lock her inside a room on and off and tried to forcibly restrain her from going to school. Appellant used to shout at her by ordering her to remain silent and keep her mouth shut. Appellant never showed any love towards respondent and their son and he was always interested in other activities and threatening the respondent with dire consequences if she reveal the incidents occurred in the home to anyone. The appellant was never a dutiful husband towards respondent and nor responsible father towards their son. He always tried to poison their child’s mind by telling him all kinds of bad things about the respondent. She filed O.S.No.251 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Nuzvid of Kirshna District, when the appellant and his family members tried to sell away the joint family property, i.e., land admeasuring Acs.10.06 guntas at Cheemala Padu Village of Krishna District and got interim orders restraining appellant and his mother from alienating the said property. The appellant filed the present petition suppressing the real facts seeking divorce even prior to their separation. The appellant necked out the respondent from the matrimonial company at the address given by him in the cause title. 6. To prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion, appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and his son as P.W.2. He has filed Ex.A1/Wedding Card and Ex.A2/marriage photos. 7. To disprove the said allegation of cruelty, respondent examined herself as R.W.1. However, she did not exhibit any documents. 8. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, learned trial Court dismissed the said OP filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage against the respondent on the ground of cruelty. 9. Appellant alleged that he is a private employee working in an automobile shop. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 11.02.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. 9. Appellant alleged that he is a private employee working in an automobile shop. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed on 11.02.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a male child on 04.10.2002 out of their wedlock. They lived happily till the year 2009. He used to purchase household articles apart from purchasing gold and silver to the respondent as per her wish. Respondent expressed her wish that she wants to join as a teacher in a school. He accepted her proposal for joining as a teacher in a school. After joining in the job, there was a change in the attitude of the respondent. She started neglecting their son and also the appellant. Even sometimes, respondent used to shout at their son for no reason and started avoiding the appellant by discarding their presence at home. When he pointed out regarding her attitude, she used to quarrel with him for petty things without any reason. Respondent stopped looking after the household work and even stopped cooking and looking after the well being of their son. 10. It is further alleged that respondent never extended her love and respect towards the appellant and his family members. She never behaved as a dutiful mother and as a loyal wife. From 14.05.2012 till 30.05.2012, respondent left the house without information and when she was questioned by the appellant, she adamantly stated that she went to a training from her school. 11. It is further alleged that the appellant was shocked to notice when the articles such as beds, computers, T.V, Fridge, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, Almirah etc., were found missing in the house and learnt that they were sold by the respondent without any cause. The appellant intimated to the Marredpally Police, but they have not taken any action against the respondent. Having vexed with the attitude of the respondent, the appellant left the house along with his son and shifted to some other place. 12. Respondent used to behave abnormally such as shouting in a high pitch, uttering words without any meaning and causing self injury. Appellant on the advise of elders again approached the respondent to bring back her, but she was unwilling to join him and she started cursing him. 12. Respondent used to behave abnormally such as shouting in a high pitch, uttering words without any meaning and causing self injury. Appellant on the advise of elders again approached the respondent to bring back her, but she was unwilling to join him and she started cursing him. Thus, the appellant is mentally exhausted and not in a position to bear any mental tension and agony on account of abnormal behavior of the respondent as he cannot live in constant fear. With the said allegations, he filed the aforesaid petition. 13. Respondent filed counter denying said allegations. According to her, she never behaved in cruel manner as alleged by the appellant. It is the appellant, who neglected her and harassed her. To look after the well being and future welfare of the child, the respondent being mother and natural guardian filed a suit in O.S.No.251 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, a Nuzvid of Krishna District seeking partition of the family properties. Learned trial Court granted interim orders. Appellant was never a dutiful husband towards the respondent nor responsible father towards their son. He always tried to poison their child’s mind by telling all kinds of bad things about the respondent. Missing articles, as alleged by the appellant were given by the parents of the respondent at the time of marriage and those articles were left by the respondent at the house of the appellant only as she was necked out by the appellant empty handed. The appellant has been running his own business in the address shown in the cause title. He made the said allegations only to get rid off of the respondent and obtain decree of divorce. 14. As discussed supra, to prove the said allegations, appellant examined himself as P.W.1, his son as P.W.2, and exhibited Ex.A1/wedding card and Ex.A2/marriage photos. 15. It is apt to note that it is the appellant, who filed the aforesaid OP against the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, and therefore, he has to plead and prove the same by producing cogent evidence. 16. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of a person, which is adversely affecting the other. 16. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of a person, 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. 17. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. 18. 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 , 1. (2007) 4 SCC 511 . 19. 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. 20. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. 20. 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 . 21. As discussed supra, the appellant made specific allegations against the respondent. But he failed to examine any of the aforesaid witnesses and he has not filed any documents. Though the appellant alleged that the respondent used to behave abnormally, he has not examined any witness and also filed any documents. The deposition of P.W.2/son is not useful. On mere allegation neither the Family Court nor this Court can grant a decree of divorce. He has not taken any steps to send the respondent to be examined by a competent Doctor, Committee of Doctors or to any hospital/institution rendering diagnosis and treatment of persons having mental/psychopathic disorder. 22. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by the appellant. There is no error in it. Appellant was 41 years at the time of filing of the aforesaid OP in the year 2012 and respondent was 33 years. They are now 55 years and 47 years respectively. As discussed supra, appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. 23. In the light of the same, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.