JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this appeal the appellant-husband has assailed the judgment dated 31st March, 1994 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, exercising the powers of District Judge whereby his petition under section 13 (1-a) and (1-b) of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) was dismissed. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the parties were married in December 1978 and out of their wedlock a son was born on 28-5-1981. After a few years of their marriage their relations became strained and since 1983 they have been litigating for their respective rights before various Courts. The respondent-wife filed a petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. for her maintenance and the maintenance of her minor child before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, but it was compromised and she accompanied the appellant-husband to her matrimonial home. But again another petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. was filed on 1-5-1989 which was allowed on 4-12-1991 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, awarding a sum of Rs. 400 p. m. as maintenance to respondent-wife and a sum of Rs. 200 per month to minor child master Suman. This order was maintained up to High Court as both the revision petitions under section 397, Cr. P, C. before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, and petition under section 482, Cr. P. C, before this Court were dismissed. In the meantime, on 12-2-1989, the appellant-husband had filed petition under section 6 of Hindu Minor and Guardianship Act for the custody of minor Master Suman which was dismissed on 26-10-1991 by Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin. 3. It was in this background that the present petition was filed on 1-5-1992 for dissolving their marriage by way of decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. 3. It was in this background that the present petition was filed on 1-5-1992 for dissolving their marriage by way of decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. As per the allegations made in the petition, the respondent-wife left the house of the appellant-husband on her own and without his consent on 13-7-1986 and did not resume his company since then It is further stated that the respondent-wife wrote a letter to his Commandant, C. I. S, F. under whom he was working as Inspector, on the basis of which his explanation was called for, which caused great harassment and mental agony as well as disturbance in his normal life which amounts to real cruelty as the allegations made in the complaint regarding his remarriage to another girl named Manchali Devi were totally wrong and imaginary. 4. The respondent-wife in her written statement denied these allegations though her reply is not specific in respect of making false allegations of remarrying another girl named Manchali. The relevant portion of her reply is as under :— "It is denied that the respondent ever left the house of the petitioner. Actually, the respondent was residing in the house of the petitioner in village Majhon and the petitioner was working somewhere in West Bengal. Thereafter, the petitioner in order to turn out the respondent from his house stopped maintenance to her as well as to child and also directed his parents to turn out the respondent from their house, therefore, she has to take shelter in the house of her father but this all occurred due to the act and conduct of the petitioner. Thereafter, whenever the petitioner used to come on annual leave, the respondent always tried to go to his house but he did not tolerate. When the petitioner did not pay any maintenance then an application under section 125, Cr. P. C, was filed by respondent before the learned C J. M. Bilaspur in which the maintenance allowance of Rs. 400 p. m. was allowed to the respondent. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the petitioner for the custody of the minor child but keeping in view the conduct and acts of the petitioner, the custody was denied to him, and therefore, now the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on wrong and fribulous facts. 400 p. m. was allowed to the respondent. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the petitioner for the custody of the minor child but keeping in view the conduct and acts of the petitioner, the custody was denied to him, and therefore, now the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on wrong and fribulous facts. The petitioner wants to marry with some other lady who is educated. The petitioner has always been taking advantage of the illiteracy and simplicity of the respondent. The respondent is ready and willing to settle in the house of the petitioner. The letter was written just to ask the petitioner to maintain the respondent and his child whereas there was no allegations which tantamounts to any misconduct or harassment to the petitioner." 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed;— "I. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce as alleged ? OPA 2. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition due to his act, omission and wrong ? OPR 3. Relief.” The Senior Sub Judge has answered both the issues in negative holding that the respondent-wife has always been ready to join the company of the appellant-husband but it was he who was not accepting her, as such, the allegation of desertion by the respondent-wife from 13th July, 1986 are not proved. It is further held that the complaint made by respondent-wife to the Commandant are not such as to cause mental cruelty to the appellant-husband. Now the appellant-husband by way of this appeal has challenged these findings. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The appellant-husband has appeared as his own witness and produced Nand Lal, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat (PW 2), Bansi Ram (PW 3), to prove the allegation of desertion, Jagat Pal (PW 4), Surinder Pal (PW 5), his brother Gopal Dass (PW 6) and Shaunki Ram (PW 7) to prove that said Manchali Devi daughter of Prem Lai, resident of village Deoli, District Bilaspur, was got married to his brother Gopal Dass (PW 6). in rebuttal only the respondent-wife has appeared as her own witness and produced judgment dated 4-12-1990 Ext. PA-4 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in her petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. and judgment dated 26-10-1990 Ext. in rebuttal only the respondent-wife has appeared as her own witness and produced judgment dated 4-12-1990 Ext. PA-4 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in her petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. and judgment dated 26-10-1990 Ext. PA-5, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin in the petition under section 6 of Hindu Minor and Guardianship Act filed by appellant-husband. In his statement, appellant-husband has reiterated the allegations made in the petition and has stated that since 1979 the relations between him and respondent-wife became strained and from 13th July, 1986 she did not join his company. According to him, from the date of their marriage till 13th July, 1986, the respondent-wife had been residing with her parents but was joining his company when he used to come to his village on annual leave. He has categorically denied that he had contracted second marriage with one Manchali Devi as complained by respondent-wife to his Commandant in the year 1990 which caused him great harassment and mental agony and belittled him before his colleagues. He has placed on record the letter whereby his explanation was called for by his Commandant alongwith the complaint of respondent-wife as Ext, PA-1 and PA-2, 7. Witnesses Nand Lal (PW 2) and Bansi Ram (PW 3) have deposed about the efforts made by them and the appellant-husband to make the respondent-wife to join his company by holding Gharelu Panchayat or otherwise. Witnesses Jagat Pal (PW 4), Surinder Pal (PW -5). brother of appellant-husband Gopal Dass (PW 6) and Shaunki Ram (PW 7) have proved the marriage of said Manchali Devi daughter of Prem Lal with Gopal Dass (PW 6). Their marriage certificate Ext PW 5/A was issued by PW 5 Surinder Pal, Secretary, Markanday Prabhandhak Committee which is duly signed by both Gopal Dass and Manchali Devi besides Jagat Pal, the Pujari of the temple as well as Dhani Ram, father of Gopal Dass and Salig Ram, brother of Manchali Devi. Copy of Parivar Register Ext. PA-3 showing Manchali Devi as wife of Gopal Dass is also placed on record. 8. To controvert the case of the appellant-husband the respondent- wife in her statement has denied that she had made complaint against him that he had married another woman. Copy of Parivar Register Ext. PA-3 showing Manchali Devi as wife of Gopal Dass is also placed on record. 8. To controvert the case of the appellant-husband the respondent- wife in her statement has denied that she had made complaint against him that he had married another woman. According to her, she only wrote one letter to the officers of the appellant-husband complaining that he was not maintaining her as well as her minor child Master Suman. In her reply to the divorce petition as well as statement in the Court her version is that the appellant-husband wants to marry with some other lady who is educated, whereas in her complaint, Ext. PA-2, she had specifically stated that in April 1990 her husband married Manchali Devi daughter of Prem Lai and requested that he may be dismissed from service for this misconduct. On the basis of this complaint explanation of the appellant-husband was called for by letter dated 20th November, 1990, Ext. PA-1 to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him for contracting second marriage when his legally wedded wife Smt. Leela Devi was alive and also for not maintaining her. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is proved that the respondent-wife has been levelling false allegations against the appellant-husband that he had married another woman named Manchali daughter of Prem Lal, on the basis of which his explanation for taking disciplinary action was called for which would have caused him harassment as well as mental agony and would have belittled him in the eyes of his colleagues and his officers 9. The question arises whether the above stated proved misbehaviour and misconduct of the respondent-wife amounts to cruelty, as contemplated under Clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act. Admittedly, the case in hand is that of mental cruelty, which has been broadly defined by the Supreme Court in K. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710, as :— "......which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710, as :— "......which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made " 10. In this judgment the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court have also referred to their earlier decisions rendered under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act in Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 and Smt. Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr. S. P. Trivedi, 1993 (3) Scale 541, wherein it has been said that the word cruelty cannot be defined and it has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs in the context of the type of life to which the parties are accustomed and also their economic and social conditions besides their cultural and human values to which they attach importance. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court have granted divorce on their coming to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had become dead both mentally and practically, and no useful purpose would be served in not severing their matrimonial ties notwithstanding that irretrievable break down of the marriage is not a ground for divorce. 11. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court have granted divorce on their coming to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had become dead both mentally and practically, and no useful purpose would be served in not severing their matrimonial ties notwithstanding that irretrievable break down of the marriage is not a ground for divorce. 11. Judging the case in hand in the light of the principles annunciated hereinabove, we find that the misbehaviour and misconduct of the respondent-wife amounts to mental cruelty entitling the appellant-husband to dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. The allegations made by the respondent-wife in complaint Ex. PA-2 that the appellant-husband had married one Manchali Devi daughter of Prem Lal, were found false, as in fact she was married to one of his younger brothers, namely, Gopal Dass, as proved by oral evidence of Jagat Pal (PW 4), Surinder Pal (PW 5), Gopal Dass (PW 6), Shaunki Ram (PW-7) and documents Exts. PW 5/A and PA-3, but the harm intended to be done by the respondent-wife to the reputation as well as the service career of the appellant-husband, was done as he was given notice to show cause Ext. PA-1 for taking disciplinary action against him. Though there is nothing on record to show that what further action was taken against him, yet it can be presumed that the notice to show cause would have caused him great embarrassment before his officers and colleagues and mental agony till he would not have been absolved of the accusations made against him. In fact due to protracted litigation between the parties since 1983, the respondent-wife had become so spiteful against the appellant-husband that she had requested for his dismissal from the service on the allegations of contracting second marriage with Manchali Devi, which were false to her knowledge, as she did not stick to it later in her reply to the divorce petition as well as in her statement in the Court in divorce petition. 12. 12. In this background, the refusal of the appellant-husband to accept the respondent-wife into the matrimonial fold, is genuine, whereas, the statement of the respondent-wife before the trial Court as well as before this court during the course of reconciliation proceedings is only a mere assertion without any seriousness in it After all the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the parties on each other in the earlier litigations as well as this petition and complaint Ext. PA-3, their living together as husband and wife is out of question, Admittedly, they have not lived together since July 1986 and neither of them had made any attempt for their reunion, which shows that they reached at a point of no return and their marriage has become dead both imotionally and practically, and no useful purpose will be served in not severing the matrimonial ties. 13. In view of our findings that the appellant-husband was treated with cruelty by the respondent-wife, we need not deal with his other allegation of desertion. Otherwise also on the basis of evidence on record, it cannot be conclusively held whether the appellant-husband or respondent-wife was responsible for their separation but the fact remains that their relations had become strained as far back as in the year 1979 since when they have been litigating on one count or the other. The respondent-wife in her statement made on 20-1-1994 has deposed that she lived with her in-laws for about two years after the marriage during which period the appellant-husband used to give her maintenance. Thereafter when her in-laws started troubling her and the appellant-husband stopped her giving maintenance, she was compelled to come to the house of her parents and has been Jiving with them. Though she has stated that she is always willing to join the company of her husband, yet there is nothing on record to substantiate that she made any effort for reconciliation ; instead she had taken recourse to litigation and went to the extent of levelling charge of second marriage with a woman who was in fact married to the younger brother of the appellant-husband. Looking to the nature of the job of the appellant-husband, who is working as Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force, it may not be possible for him to keep the respondent-wife with him at his place of posting and in that eventuality, she was to live in his native village and adjust with his parents and other members of his family. Even if the respondent-wife wanted to live with her parents, it should have been with the mutual consent of the parties, but the case of the appellant-husband is that he never gave his consent and the respondent-wife wanted him to live with her parents as Ghar-Jawai. We need not go into these allegations and counter allegations, as we are not considering the ground of desertion. 14. Therefore, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 31st March, 1994 of the Senior Sub-Judge, Bilaspur and allow the petition of the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. However, keeping in view the financial status of the appellant-husband and all other relevant factors we direct that decree of divorce will not come in operation till he pays an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) in lieu of permanent alimony. 15. We further direct that with effect from 1st April, 1996 he will pay a sum of Rs. 600 per month as maintenance to his son Master Suman, till he attains majority. A copy of this order will be sent to the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Oil and Natural Gas Commission, District Mehsana, Gujarat, who is directed to deduct the amount of maintenance from the salary of the appellant-husband every month and send it to the respondent-wife at her address, who will utilize this amount for the upkeep and welfare of Master Suman, At this stage, Shri Jishtu, learned Counsel for the appellant-husband, states that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 is ready with him and he will deposit it in the Registry of this Court during the course of the day. On deposit, the amount will be put in fixed deposit for a period of 90 days The respondent wife is at liberty to withdraw this amount herself or through her counsel at any point of time. Costs easy. Order accordingly.