K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Ms. Y.Harini, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order and decree dated 19.06.2020 passed in FCOP No.617 of 2017 by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, the appellant filed the present appeal.

3. The appellant – husband filed the aforesaid petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking dissolution of marriage dated 21.08.2008 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion contending:-

               i. His marriage with the respondent – wife was performed on 21.08.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs, at Secunderabad.

               ii. It is an arranged marriage.

               iii. They were blessed with a male child on 26.11.2013 out of their lawful wedlock. He is 13 years at present.

               iv. After marriage, the respondent – wife joined the company of the appellant – husband at his residence.

               v. For about two months, she was good with him. Thereafter, she expressed that the marriage was performed on the force of elders without her consent due to financial constraints.

               vi. Her family members and grand-parents used to come to his house most frequently and after their visit, behavior of the respondent –wife became aggressive towards her husband and his family members.

               vii. She used to go to her parents house at Warangal very frequently. She insisted him to put up separate residence. When he refused, she used to abuse him in filthy language and assault him physically.

               viii. She was in the habit of chatting on her mobile during late hours in the bathroom for a long time, when he asked the details with whom she was chatting, she used to delete the call data to keep it hidden from him which led to suspicion.

               ix. She used to abuse the elders in unparliamentarily language. When he questioned, she left his house and lodged a complaint against him with Women Protection Cell where counseling was conducted for thrice but in vain.

               x. The respondent and her parents approached ‘kula sangam’ / Caste Association and on their persuasion, he brought her back to his home in the month of September, 2010.

               xi. One midnight, she bit him and caused injury. Both of them went to hospital for treatment. She left the hospital without informing him to her grandparents home and did not come back.

               xii. He got issued legal notice dated 27.04.2012 requesting her to join his company but she joined him after 12 months with the intervention of Advocate.

               xiii. In the month of March, 2013, she conceived and blessed with a male child on 26.11.2013.

               xiv. In the month of July, 2015, as there was a quarrel between his wife and his sister, to avoid complication, he dropped his wife at her parents house. Since then she did not come back.

               xv. He requested her to come back at least for the welfare of their child but she refused.

               xvi. She again lodged a complaint before Women Protection Cell but she did not heed the advice of the Women Protection Cell to join him due to her adamant attitude.

               xvii. Her non – cooperation effected his health very badly, he suffered from sciatic pain and was totally bed ridden. But the respondent did not turn up.

               xviii. Thus, there was desertion of more than two years.

4. With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to grant decree of divorce against the appellant herein – wife.

5. The appellant – wife filed counter – cum – counter claim denying the allegations made by the appellant – husband contending:

               i. Her husband and his parents did not provide her any separate room to maintain her privacy and they treated her like a maid servant.

               ii. Her husband used to beat her in the mid night and ask her to get out of their home.

               iii. Her husband used to hold her ATM card and withdraw money without her consent. Her husband took her entire gold ornaments.

               iv. He prevented her from joining his society from 05.01.2017 onwards on the advice of his parents.

               v. She did not cause any inconvenience to him.

               vi. She was ill-treated and caused deep injury on her head within one year of her marriage by pushing her against wall when she failed to get money from her parents. She was treated by Dr.Ramulu, Secunderabad.

               vii. She wants to lead marital life at her in-laws place.

6. With the aforesaid contentions, she sought to dismiss the petition and grant restitution of conjugal rights.

7. To prove the cruelty, the appellant - husband examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is wedding card, Ex.A.2 is wedding photograph, Ex.A.3 is proceedings of Kula Sangham, Ex.A.4 is legal notice, Ex.A.5 is reply notice, Ex.A.6 is Memorandum of Understanding and Ex.A.7 is Photostat copy of Aadhar Card.

8. To disprove the claim of the appellant – husband, the respondent - wife examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6. Ex.B.1 is Photostat copy of OP card of Star hospital dated 14.07.2014, Ex.B.2 is declaration deed before marriage, Ex.B.3 is Gangaputra Sangam acknowledgment, dated 18.06.2010 and Ex.B.4 is photostat copy of community resolving letter dated 04.07.2010, Ex.B.5 is Photostat copy of complaint filed by the respondent with Begumpet Police Station and copy of receipt dated 30.11.2016 of complaint.

9. On consideration of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, vide impugned order dated 19.06.2020, learned Family Court, dismissed the said FCOP filed by the appellant – husband whereas, allowed the counter claim of the respondent – wife directing the appellant – husband to take back the respondent to conjugal society within two months from the date of the said order.

10. Challenging the said order, the appellant – husband preferred the present appeal.

11. As discussed supra, the appellant – husband filed the aforesaid FCOP against the respondent – wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Therefore, he has to plead and prove the said cruelty by producing relevant evidence.

12. Though the appellant – husband pleaded that after two months of the marriage, the respondent informed him that the marriage was performed without her consent on the force of the elders of the family due to financial constraints, he has not examined any witness to prove the same. He has also made an allegation that since the date of marriage, the attitude of the respondent towards appellant – husband and his family was different etc, he has not examined any witness to prove the same. Though the appellant alleged that the respondent abused him and his parents in filthy language and assaulted him, he has not examined his parents in proof of the same.

13. It is also apt to note that the appellant has made serious allegation that respondent was in the habit of chatting on her mobile phone in bathroom during late hours and she did not reveal with whom she was chatting. But he has not examined any witness and produced any evidence to prove the same.

14. Perusal of record would reveal that due to the differences between the appellant and respondent, Gangaputra Sangam conducted panchayat on 04.07.2010 at 12 noon and the said fact was informed to the appellant vide Ex.B.3 notice dated 18.06.2010. Both the appellant and respondent participated in the said meeting/panchayat arrived at an understanding and the terms were reduced into writing i.e. Ex.A.3 dated 04.07.2010. In the said resolution, it is specifically mentioned that the appellant insisted the respondent to have medicines not to conceive which is illegal. There is also a reference that the appellant and his mother abused and assaulted the respondent. The appellant also insisted the respondent to sign on a white paper. He has also started suspecting her by making false allegations. Thus, on consideration of the said facts, in the said meeting it was resolved that if the appellant is not interested in respondent doing job, she has to leave the said job. If necessary, they have to set up separate family. Even then, there is no change in the attitude of the appellant.

15. The appellant has also addressed a letter dated 19.08.2010 to Gangaputra Association, with a request to resolve the disputes between him and his wife. Thereafter, he has issued Ex.A.4 legal notice dated 27.04.2012 to his wife demanding to give consent for obtaining divorce with mutual consent. Respondent sent Ex.A.5 reply dated 15.05.2012 denying the allegations made by the appellant in the said legal notice. She expressed her willingness to join the appellant.

16. It is also the specific contention of the respondent that her son is suffering with cardiac problem. In proof of the same, she has filed Ex.B.1 OP card dated 14.07.2014. The appellant did not dispute the said fact. As discussed supra, it is the appellant who filed the aforesaid application against the respondent/wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has to plead and prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. He has admitted that after birth, his son cropped up some health problem. Doctors diagnosed that his son is born with a hole in the heart. He has also admitted that after birth of his son, his wife started behaving differently. She stated that she intends to live independently without allowing his sisters and parents visiting there. But he has not examined any witness to prove the same.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant – husband vehemently contended that the respondent – wife deserted the appellant many times and it is a multiple desertion. But he failed to examine any witness and failed to prove the same by producing any document. The appellant failed to elicit anything from R.W.1 during the cross-examination.

18. On the other hand, during the cross-examination, he has admitted that his marriage took place on 21.08.2008, whereas, his wife conceived in April, 2013. During 5 years period i.e. 2008 to 2013, his wife did not stay with him. He has taken legal steps in the year 2012 seeking divorce. However, he has issued Ex.A.4 legal notice. He has also further admitted that his family members advised to take back his wife to lead marital life. He did not pay maintenance to his wife from 2008 to 2012. During the said period, his wife joined his society two times and they lead conjugal life. His wife used to quarrel either with him or with his sisters or parents. Quarrels are continuous process between him and his wife even as on the date. Even then, he has not examined either his parents or sisters in proof of the same.

19. It is also relevant to note that the appellant is suffering with sciatica problem. He has stated the same in his evidence itself.

20. It is also apt to note that the respondent has filed counter –claim in the said OP seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The same was allowed. Even then, the appellant did not prefer any appeal challenging the same.

21. During cross-examination, he admitted that he has gone through the counter filed by the respondent and that he has not noticed any claim made by the respondent along with the counter. He is not accepting the counter claim made by the respondent. However, he has filed rejoinder.

22. Though he made several allegations that respondent did not provide breakfast, lunch and dinner etc, to him, he has not mentioned anything in the legal notice and in the present petition. The said facts are not mentioned in Ex.A.3 – proceedings of kula sangham, Ex.A.6 – Memorandum of Understanding and Ex.B.4 – Photostat copy of community resolving letter, dated 04.07.2010. However, he has admitted that he started suspecting the character of respondent which developed in his mind immediately after three months. He has not investigated personally the suspicion about the respondent’s character. He broke cell phone of the respondent. After one and a half year, they lead happy marital life for about six months. Thereafter, again misunderstandings developed between them. During the cross-examination, he has further admitted that the respondent was not cooperating with him in leading conjugal life and she used to fight with all his family members. He lived with his wife for about ten years and during that period, there was misunderstanding with his wife. He admitted that during her stay with him, he physically beat her two times, even then, the respondent stayed with him. Respondent lodged a complaint against him in Women Protection Cell who called them for counseling. He has also advised about approaching Gangaputra Sangam. The said Sangam held panchayat and passed aforesaid resolution.

23. During the course of cross-examination, he has further admitted that on one occasion, while he was discharging conjugal duties with the respondent, she beat him on his thigh, he consulted doctor for treatment. When he stated to the doctor that his wife beat him, she suddenly left the consulting room and went away to her parents house. Even then, he has not filed any document, elicited anything from the respondent as R.W.1 during cross-examination. He has not filed prescription to show that he was treated by the doctor apart from examining the said doctor.

24. It is apt to note that on mere allegations and insinuations, neither Family Court nor this Court can grant decree of divorce. Appellant has to plead and prove the cruel acts and desertion by producing relevant evidence, both oral and documentary.

25. As discussed supra, burden lies on the appellant to prove the same by producing relevant evidence. In the present case, the appellant failed to produce any evidence either oral or documentary. As discussed supra, he has also admitted during cross-examination that he beat his wife twice and caused bleeding injuries. He has further admitted that in the month of April, 2014, he took back his wife along with his son to his house to lead marital life. His wife stayed with him from April, 2014 to July, 2015 in his house. On 14.07.2015, a quarrel took place between his wife and his sister. Then he sent his wife to her parents house for one week. When he went to bring back his wife and son, she refused to come back. Then he brought back his son only and after two hours, he dropped his son back with the respondent. On 26.08.2015, his father went to his wife’s place and brought her son back. He retained his son for about 12 days. She did not make any enquiry of his son and wife when he was bed ridden. He has also admitted that he has not paid any pie towards maintenance of his wife and son. Even then, he is claiming that respondent subjected him to cruelty and assaulted him. It is not multiple desertion as claimed by the appellant. It is the appellant who made respondent to leave his company. The said facts are clear from Ex.A.3, A.6 and B.4. Therefore, the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent are contrary to the aforesaid documents.

26. Respondent always expressed her willingness to join company of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the respondent deserted him multiple times. Now, the appellant is 46 years and respondent is 41 years. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent is employed and is capable of maintaining herself. The appellant has the responsibility to maintain his son.

27. It is also relevant to note that the respondent has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in the present appeal seeking a direction to respondent to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards Advocate fee. Vide order dated 13.12.2022, this Court allowed the said application in part and directed the appellant – husband to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the respondent to meet her legal expenses within thirty days.

28. It is also apt to note that this Court referred the matter to mediation and it was ‘unsuccessful’.

29. 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).

30. 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 is 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)

31. 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)

32. 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 as to whether it amounts to cruelty or not.

33. Learned counsel for the appellant – husband placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh (supra), wherein the Apex Court referred certain illustrations with regard to the cruel acts. They are only illustrative but not exhaustive. This Court has to consider the allegations made by the appellant and evidence produced by him, both oral and documentary, to come to a conclusion as to the said allegations made by him against his wife are cruel acts or not. As discussed supra, the appellant herein failed to prove the said allegations made by him against his wife by producing relevant evidence. Except examining himself, he has not examined any other witness. The aforesaid documents would reveal that the respondent never subjected him to cruelty and never deserted him.

34. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Col.K.Murugaiah (Retd) vs. Smt. Valli (Order dated 24.12.2010 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1212 of 2005 (MC)). It is a case of multiple desertion. As discussed supra, in the present case, respondent never deserted the appellant as alleged by him. He failed to prove the same. The facts of the said case are different to the facts of the case on hand. As discussed supra, though the counter claim is allowed, he has not preferred any appeal.

35. In the present case, the appellant herein utterly failed to prove the aforesaid cruelty and desertion by producing proper and relevant evidence. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide impugned order dated 19.06.2020, learned Family Court dismissed the said HMOP No. 617 of 2017 filed by the appellant. It is a reasoned order and well founded. Therefore, the impugned order does not require interference of this Court.

36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.