The question why the remedy by way of restitution of conjugal rights has not been exhausted by the petitioner would speak volume, when the ground raised is the alleged denial of conjugal rights. The evidence adduced did not reveal any slapping on the petitioner by the respondent/wife at any point of time. Needless to say that mere differences of opinion between the couple or failure on the part of one of the couple to give proper care to the other in its true sense as husband and wife may not be sufficient to bring the same under the umbrella of cruelty, either mental or physical. The expression 'cruelty' has to be understood having the extent of outweighing the intimacy and confidence in the marital life to the extent of causing danger to the other, if it was permitted to continue. Going by the reasoning given by the lower court based on the involvement of daughter, who used to contact with the petitioner through the mobile phone belonged to the respondent/mother, we are of the view that no sufficient ground which would enable the petitioner to have a divorce on the ground of cruelty, is brought out. On the other hand,