Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, filed by the appellant/wife against the decree of divorce passed against her by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2002, vide judgment dated 25-11-2005. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts material for deciding the appeal are mentioned herein below: ( 3. ) APPELLANT was married to the respondent on 19-1-1999 at Hotel Shri Radha, Jabalpur, according to Hindu rites and customs. It was second marriage of both the parties. Appellant was the widow of Paresh Shah and she had one son namely Jenil from her husband late Paresh Shah, while respondent/husband had also two children from his deceased first wife. The respondent filed a petition for divorce against the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Trial Court on 29-8-2000 alleging that immediately after their marriage his wife, the appellant herein, began to quarrel with him and his family members and created nuisance by continuously shouting for 3 to 4 hours in night. On March, 1999, she walked away from the house of the respondent and came back after creating lot of nuisance on road and thus insulted and humiliated the respondent. Appellant also did not discharge her household duties and always created nuisance during nights by beating the respondent and threatening to commit suicide. In the month of July and August, 1999 she walked out of the house of the respondent, reached bus stand and alarmed the respondent to live separately with the result, mother of the respondent had to shift her residence to some other place. ( 4. ) IT was further averred that in the month of June, 1999, appellant quarrelled with the parents and family members of the respondent and left for Seoni Malwa but she again came back after 3-4 days, continued misbehaving with respondent and his family members as before. In the month of September, 1999 she put fire in her saree which was extinguished by one boy Brajesh present at that time. Again in the month of November and December, 1999 she left the house of respondent and stayed at Railway Station, Jabalpur for 2-3 hours and when the respondent drove her back on his scooter, she started throwing her ornaments and jumped from the scooter and threatened to commit suicide. Again in the month of November and December, 1999 she left the house of respondent and stayed at Railway Station, Jabalpur for 2-3 hours and when the respondent drove her back on his scooter, she started throwing her ornaments and jumped from the scooter and threatened to commit suicide. When again, in the month of January, 2000 the appellant left the house of respondent and threatened to commit suicide, he reported the matter to the police on 27-1-2000, as he was fed up with the ill behaviour and quarrelsome attitude of the appellant. In order to live peaceful life the respondent had shifted from his own house in Satna Building to a rented house at Matrachaya at Jabalpur. But even there the appellant continued shouting and creating nuisance deliberately, thus caused mental torture, harassment and cruelty to the respondent. On 11-8-2000 the appellant left the house of the respondent along with the valuables, threatening the respondent to involve him in false criminal case. She thus withdrew herself from the society of the respondent and deserted him deliberately. Therefore, the respondent/husband had to file the petition for divorce against her on the ground that she has been repeatedly committing cruelties on him and is not discharging her matrimonial duties as a wife. ( 5. ) THE petition for divorce was opposed by the appellant in the written statement filed by her before the Trial Court. Appellant specifically denied all the allegations made against her in the petition for divorce and pleaded that after marriage she had been living peacefully in Satna Building, Jabalpur, in the joint family but her husband, the respondent as well as his family members used to taunt her that she had come to a multimillionaire family without any dowry but a son in dowry. Due to the attitude of her husband/respondent and his family members she had to live in a separate house at Matrachaya with her husband and three children but there also respondent was beating her and coerced her to bring Rs. 2. 5 lacs, from her father for his business and on her refusal to accede to his demand, the respondent neglected her and threatened to divorce her. He also compelled her to sign a number of blank papers to use against her as and when required. 2. 5 lacs, from her father for his business and on her refusal to accede to his demand, the respondent neglected her and threatened to divorce her. He also compelled her to sign a number of blank papers to use against her as and when required. In fact the respondent turned her out from the matrimonial home and handed over her son to the parents of her first husband at Nagpur and thus causing great mental pain and agony to the appellant. Respondent had made all false allegations in the divorce petition and created false and fabricated evidence in his favour. The respondent could not take advantage of his own wrongs and he was not entitled to any decree of divorce against the appellant. ( 6. ) ON the above pleadings the Trial Court framed issued and parties went to trial and adduced their evidence. ( 7. ) THE Trial Court, after the analysis of the evidence adduced in the case passed a decree of divorce against the appellant, on the ground of cruelty as envisaged under Section 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. ( 8. ) THE impugned judgment and decree are assailed inter alia on the ground that the Trial Court did not assess the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and failed to consider that the respondent fabricated the documents (Exh. P-9 and Exh. P-10) and created evidence in his favour; and the Trial Court gravely erred in giving perverse finding and postponing the determination of permanent alimony. ( 9. ) ARGUMENTS of both the sides were heard and record perused. ( 10. ) BOTH parties have led the bulk of evidence by way of affidavits in support of their respective contentions. However, it is abundantly clear from the evidence of respondent Azad Jain (P. W. 1) that soon after marriage, appellant/ wife began to create problems in his life by her unjustified conduct and reprehensible behaviour. Respondent/husband Azad Jain (P. W. 1), categorically deposed that the respondent quite often used to run away from the house and create scenes on road and threatened to commit suicide. She also misbehaved with respondent and his family members and insisted for separate residence. Respondent/husband Azad Jain (P. W. 1), categorically deposed that the respondent quite often used to run away from the house and create scenes on road and threatened to commit suicide. She also misbehaved with respondent and his family members and insisted for separate residence. Despite shifting to a rented house, as desired by the appellant, she did not mend her ways and continued the same quarrelsome behaviour and misbehaved with respondent and repeatedly threatened to commit suicide. Respondent (P. W. 1) has given vivid account of the aforesaid incidents in Paras 5 to 10 and Paras 27, 35, 36 and 50 of his evidence. According to respondent (P. W. 1) he also apprised his father-in-law with the state of affairs vide various letters (Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-6) written to him. ( 11. ) GENDIBAI (P. W. 3), mother of the respondent, who happened to be present for some time with appellant and the respondent, while residing with them, also supported the aforesaid averments to a considerable extent. ( 12. ) RESPONDENTs brother Anil Jain (P. W. 2) has also deposed about the obnoxious behaviour of the appellant with respondent of which he was informed from time to time on phone by his brother. Even he himself has Claimed personally to have witnessed some instances of her untoward behaviour, which is evident from (Para 16 and Para 20) of his evidence. ( 13. ) EVEN the father of the first wife of the respondent namely, Sureshchandra Jain (P. W. 4) stated to have come to know of the unfair conduct of the appellant of her running away from the house and her threatenings to commit suicide. As revealed in Para 6 during his cross-examination, appellant Jaya Jain, had made suicidal threats even in his presence. ( 14. ) ALTHOUGH, appellant Jaya Jain (D. W. 1), has totally denied byway of her affidavit all the allegations made against her. and also examined her sister Monika Sethi (D. W. 2), brother Rajesh Soni (D. W. 3) and father T. C. Soni (D. W. 4), in her support but the witnesses examined by the appellant have hardly been present at the time when the appellant used to run away from the house of the respondent, created scenes and threatened to commit suicide and put fire on her saree. ( 15. ) ON the other hand, the contents of the letter (Ex. ( 15. ) ON the other hand, the contents of the letter (Ex. P-7) written by the appellants father T. C. Soni (D. W. 4), which was admittedly written by appellants father and addressed to her also indicate that everything was not fine and normal between appellant and respondent after their marriage. Appellants father T. C. Soni (D. W. 4), also stated in his cross-examination that before filing of the case of divorce, respondent had complalned to him that appellant was not looking after household properly, though he denied the other serious complaints made by respondent against appellant. Appellants father has also admitted in his cross-examination that respondent never asked from him for a sum of Rs. 2. 5 lacs as alleged. ( 16. ) AS regards the evidence of appellant Jaya Jain (D. W. 1), denying all the allegations made against her, does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. It has remained undisputed that the respondent had married appellant, knowing it fully well that she was a widow having one son from her late husband. Therefore, filing of divorce petition by the respondent merely after 1 1/2 years on false allegations against the appellant does not appeal to reason. Appellant Jaya Jain, herself admitted in her cross-examination that the respondent had obliged her by marrying him and he had treated her son well and did not make any distinction between her son and his own children. ( 17. ) AS regards, counter allegations made by appellant against respondent in her affidavit, they do not appear to have substance in the view of the cumulative facts highlighted from the evidence of both the parties. Respondent (P. W. 1) has well explalned that he had sent the appellants son to his grandfather only when he filed the divorce petition against the appellant. ( 18. ) ON the other hand, the various letters written by the respondent to the police and other institution (Exh. P-12 and Exh. P-14 to Exh. P-16) against the appellant lend support to the respondents version that appellant has been persistently running away from his house, creating nuisance and threatening respondent that she would commit suicide. ( 19. ) MUCH stress has been Laid on appellants contention that the documents (Exh. P-9 and Exh. P-12 and Exh. P-14 to Exh. P-16) against the appellant lend support to the respondents version that appellant has been persistently running away from his house, creating nuisance and threatening respondent that she would commit suicide. ( 19. ) MUCH stress has been Laid on appellants contention that the documents (Exh. P-9 and Exh. P-10) in face of the evidence of appellant Jaya Jain (D. W. 1) and her sister Monica (D. W. 2) are false, fabricated by the respondent and the contents of these documents could not reasonably be expected to have been written by the appellant herself or her sister Monika. It was also emphasized that the letters (Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-6) were never written nor received by appellants father T. C. Soni (D. W. 4), as also asserted by the letter, and these letters were manufactured by the respondent in his favour to make a background for the divorce case. Now, even if documents (Exh. P-9 and Exh. P-10) are excluded from consideration and it is assumed that the letters (Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-6) were not sent to the appellants father, yet the contents of these letters atleast depict the mental agony and plight of the respondent caused by the behaviour of appellant. These letters cannot be held to be imaginary so as to form basis for a divorce case, particularly in view of the fact that respondent had married appellant with all her encumbrances and had admittedly performed a simple marriage. ( 20. ) BESIDES, the letters written by the respondent (Exh. P-12, Exh. P-14 and Exh. P-16) to the police and Digambar Jain Panchayat and copy of the criminal complaint (Exh. P-17) filed by appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur under Section 498-A against the respondent, which was dismissed in default, coupled with the evidence of the respondent also indicate that the appellant had been harassing respondent even after the filing of the divorce petition. ( 21. ) BE that as it may, on over all appreciation and close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties, the evidence led by the respondent/husband as available on record is more convincing and cogent and acceptable as against appellants evidence. ( 22. ( 21. ) BE that as it may, on over all appreciation and close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties, the evidence led by the respondent/husband as available on record is more convincing and cogent and acceptable as against appellants evidence. ( 22. ) IN fact, it is duly proved from the respondents evidence that soon after marriage, appellant had been often running from respondents house, creating nuisance and threatening and trying to commit suicide off and on thus making his life miserable by causing him mental pain and tension. Such acts virtually tantamount to mental cruelty on the part of the appellant. ( 23. ) THE Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli reported in MPLJ 2006 (3) Page 1, has examined the concept of matrimonial cruelty as enunciated from time to time in various judicial pronouncements. It would be profitable to reproduce the following observations made and reiterated by their Lordships in the aforesaid judgment: Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complalnant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. ( 24. ) IN the light of the above observations, the acts of the appellant, as hereinbefore mentioned can legitimately be inferred as persistently spoiling mental peace of the respondent and thereby adversely affecting his mental health and ruining his marital life. ( 24. ) IN the light of the above observations, the acts of the appellant, as hereinbefore mentioned can legitimately be inferred as persistently spoiling mental peace of the respondent and thereby adversely affecting his mental health and ruining his marital life. Obviously such acts of appellant can be termed nothing less than mental cruelty, which serves as a valid ground for divorce under Section 13 (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge committed no error in granting a decree of divorce against the appellant on the ground of her cruelty towards respondent. ( 25. ) IN view of the provision of Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, the impugned direction made regarding the permanent alimony also does not appear to be erroneous. ( 26. ) THE appeal therefore, being devoid of any merit and substance is hereby dismissed. ( 27. ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/- if certified. A decree be drawn up accordingly.