Judgment: Rohit Arya, J.;— 1. The instant appeal at the instance of wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior (M.P.) in case No. 271A/2006 HMA. Relevant facts for just disposal of this appeal are that the appellant and the respondent are Hindu by caste. As per the Hindu religion, customs and rites marriage between the two was solemnized on 06.05.1994 at Nathdwara (Rajasthan). There is no issue out of this wedlock. Respondent had instituted a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide case No. 231A/1997 which was titled as Devraj Singh v. Smt. Sangeeta Singh on the ground of cruelty, inter alia, contending that the appellant after marriage stayed just for one month with the respondent and thereafter her brother came to Gwalior and took her away to her parental home at Rajasthan. Thereafter, in August, 1994, after Rakshabandhan respondent brought the appellant back to Gwalior. Upto this time, the behaviour of appellant/defendant was normal. She stayed upto 15.01.1995. Thereafter, there was radical change for the worst in her attitude towards the husband/plaintiff and his family members. She started behaving with peculiar hostility. Neither she cooked food nor did she provide food to the respondent. She did not even extend basic courtesies to offer water when he used to return home from outside. She adopted "don't care attitude" towards his parents. She has remained unconcerned and indifferent to the happenings at home. She did not accept the fact of being member of family by her conduct and attitude. The entire home atmosphere was disturbed and a feeling of unease and uncomfort persisted in the house. Despite efforts made by the respondent to normalize the attitude of the appellant, she remained unchanged and efforts fell in vain. On 15.01.1995, her brother came and took the appellant to her parental home. Thereafter, on 25.03.1995, the respondent with the hope that everything would turn normal, he extended the hand of friendship and courtesy and took her back. Appellant stayed upto 19.09.1995. But during this period, there was no change in the appellant. Still, the respondent did not give up and took her for outing to Hill station at Shimla to provide her a different environment, climate and atmosphere which he hoped would help facilitate her to mend her ways. Unfortunately, nothing changed. Appellant stayed upto 19.09.1995. But during this period, there was no change in the appellant. Still, the respondent did not give up and took her for outing to Hill station at Shimla to provide her a different environment, climate and atmosphere which he hoped would help facilitate her to mend her ways. Unfortunately, nothing changed. On 19.09.1995, suddenly her brother came and took her back to her parental home. Thereafter, there was no communication from her end. In August, 1996, appellant's paternal uncle Shivdan Singh visited the respondent's place where he was apprised of the affairs related to appellant as detailed above. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent told her uncle that it was not possible to live together with the appellant as peace, tranquility of house has been vanished and every member of the family is under tensed and uncomfortable atmosphere. Shivdan Singh, the uncle, appreciated the problem and assured respondent and his family members that with the passage of time she would adjust herself and assured that in future respondent and his parents shall not have any complaint against her. He, in fact, reduced in writing such facts vide Ex. P-1 duly signed by him which is the part of the record. Unfortunately, all such assurances and efforts did not yield any result and she continued to conduct herself in her own undeterred way. She stayed upto only December, 1996 on which date her family members came to the house of the respondent and took her back. Thereafter, there was no communication from anybody from the side of the appellant. That apart, the respondent/plaintiff further averred that while his mother had undergone surgery, the appellant neither enquired about nor did she care which was expected from her as a daughter-in-law. In fact, his mother used to perform day-to-day household works. In July, 1996 while respondent's grandfather had suffered ailment at Jaipur and respondent and his parents went there to take care of him, the appellant though was in Jaipur and staying with his uncle did not care to visit respondent's grandfather. During the period appellant stayed with respondent, apart from the mental incompatibility and differences between two, there was no cohabitation. With such disturbing experiences in day to day life rendering the life hell, respondent served upon the appellant a notice for divorce vide Ex. P-2 by UPC Ex. P-3 and P-4. During the period appellant stayed with respondent, apart from the mental incompatibility and differences between two, there was no cohabitation. With such disturbing experiences in day to day life rendering the life hell, respondent served upon the appellant a notice for divorce vide Ex. P-2 by UPC Ex. P-3 and P-4. Neither she replied the notice nor did she care to come back and live with the husband. Under the circumstances, respondent was not left with any alternative remedy except to file the divorce petition No. 231A/1997. Despite Court summons served on her, appellant avoided and remained absent for three consecutive days i.e. 24.12.1997, 16.01.1998 and 22.01.1998. The learned trial court on the last date proceeded ex parte against the appellant and passed the decree of divorce on 05.05.1998. 2. The ex parte decree remained in force for considerably a long period and in case upto 17.07.1998 when the respondent married to one Ms. Ambika Singh. Out of the said wedlock, one son and one daughter were born and are of the age of 6 and 14 years. As such, as on date respondent married with Ms. Ambika Singh is having a complete family with two children. However, at a later stage, appellant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed on 16.12.2003. 3. The appellant on 03.07.1999 had lodged an FIR vide Crime No. 297/98 under Section 498A, 494, 323 and 504 of IPC at Police Station Surajpol with fabricated and concocted facts against the respondent and his family members on allegations that respondent misbehaved with her, physically assaulted her and demanded dowry particularly cash. Respondent/plaintiff further averred that though the court had ordered the appellant to take her belongings back but till date she did not come and take her belongings though respondent off and on offered for the same. On these facts, the respondent sought decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. To prove the plaint averments, respondent had examined himself as (PW-1) and one Alok Haridutt as (PW-2). 4. Per contra, the appellant/defendant refuted the plaint allegations and averred, inter alia, that respondent/applicant and his family members did not behave properly with her. They used to taunt her that she did not bring sufficient money and household articles in dowry. To prove the plaint averments, respondent had examined himself as (PW-1) and one Alok Haridutt as (PW-2). 4. Per contra, the appellant/defendant refuted the plaint allegations and averred, inter alia, that respondent/applicant and his family members did not behave properly with her. They used to taunt her that she did not bring sufficient money and household articles in dowry. Respondent and his family members demanded more dowry in terms of cash of Rs. Three Lacs and made it a condition precedent that unless the amount so demanded is received she would not be allowed to live in the house. She further alleged that her brother paid Rs. Eight Lacs when she went back on 09.01.1998. Besides, she submitted that she was not offered food. She was abused and physically assaulted. She was locked in the room. Respondent and his family members attempted to cause burn injuries to her. She somehow saved herself and survived. Since her parents could not fulfill the demand of respondent, she was ousted from her in-laws on 20.12.1996. Since then she is living with her parents. She alleged that Ex. P-1 allegedly written and signed by his uncle was under pressure. With the aforesaid denial of plaint averments, appellant/defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Parties led evidence both oral and documentary. Trial court after evaluating the evidence on record threadbare, granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty for the reasons stated from para 17 to 26 and recorded the finding in this behalf in para 26 of the judgment. 6. Following facts emerge from the record and judgment rendered by the learned trial court: (i) Marriage between the appellant and respondent took place on 06.05.1994 at village Kotharia, Nathdwara (Rajasthan). (ii) Appellant and the respondent have not lived together for more than a year in parts in totality spanning over the period from May 1994 to 22.12.1996. There appears to be no cohabitation or marital relationship between the appellant and the respondent. There is no issue born out of the wedlock. There was an ex parte decree of divorce vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.1998. This decree was granted in the wake of facts that appellant despite having been served chose not to appear on three consecutive days i.e. 24.12.1997, 16.01.1998 and 22.01.1998. There is no issue born out of the wedlock. There was an ex parte decree of divorce vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.1998. This decree was granted in the wake of facts that appellant despite having been served chose not to appear on three consecutive days i.e. 24.12.1997, 16.01.1998 and 22.01.1998. The aforesaid decree remained in force for more than the statutory period of 30 days of limitation for filing appeal to it and in fact remained in force upto 16.12.2003 when the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant was allowed. (iii) During interregnum while the decree for divorce was in force the respondent married to one Ms. Ambika Singh on 17.07.1998. Two issues born out of this wedlock i.e. son aged about 6 years and a daughter aged 14 years as on date. (iv) Appellant-wife has filed an application on 01.10.1999 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance wherein she stated in para 4 that it was not possible for her to live with the respondent-husband. 7. From the facts in hand and narrated above, it is quite explicit that there has been in fact and in effect no relationship between the two, mental or physical and there appeared totally incompatible behavioural differences between the two. Relationship is strained. The love is lost and emotions are dried up between the two. On the contrary, there is a typical hostility and science of vengeance in the attitude and conduct of the parties as though from the year 1994 till March 1999 appellant has made serious allegations against respondent and his parents to the effect that she was ill-treated, abused, physically assaulted, attempted to be burnt, demanded dowry in cash etc. etc. but at no point of time she ever made any complaint before any forum and at no place including her parents' place where she has stayed most of the time during period of 1994 to 1999. This shows that the allegations made in the FIR lodged after three years of marriage on 03.07.1999 under Sections 498A, 494, 323 and 504 of IPC at Police Station Surajpol are prima facie more of frustration than of substance and this appears to have been as a sequel to the ex parte decree passed on 5.5.1998 and the second marriage of the respondent solemnized on 17.07.1998. Such course of action adopted by the appellant leveling serious allegations against her husband/respondent and in-laws having status in society certainly must have caused mental agony, social indignation, persecution and demeaning sustainability in society. 8. More than 19 years have elapsed from the date of marriage which took place on 06.05.1994. The appellant and the respondent have not lived more than a year that too in parts. There appears to be no possibility of reunion. Both have been leading lives in their own way with no concern or attachment for each other. With the bitterness in relationship as is evident from the past happenings and efflux of time in fact and in effect both appellant and the respondent are in the status of aliens. At this juncture, I may profitably refer to and rely upon the concept of cruelty as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the leading case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kolhi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 wherein complete case laws in this behalf have been meticulously discussed and laid down comprehensive guiding principles for courts to follow. 9. Quoting Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105 , it is held that the word "Cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 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 to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. 10. 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 to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 50, referred to V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat reported in (1994) 1 SC 337 with regard to cruelty explained by their lordships in the said case:-- 16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct 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 can not 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. 11. In para 52, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 which reads as under: 52........Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. 12. In para 57, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the case of Sandhya Rani v. Narayanan reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 588 and held as under: 57. In Sandhya Rani v. Narayanan reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 588 this Court reiterated and took the view that since the parties are living separately for the last more than three years, we have no doubt in our minds that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. Therefore, the Court granted the decree of divorce. 13. In para 58, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the case of Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon reported in (1993) 2 SCC 6 and held as under: 58. In Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon reported in (1993) 2 SCC 6 the parties had been living separately for so many years. This Court came to the conclusion that there is no scope of settlement between them because, according to the observation of this court, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of their coming together. This Court granted the decree of divorce. 14. In para 59, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the case of Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal reported in (1996) 8 SCC 90 and held as under: 59. In Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal reported in (1996) 8 SCC 90 the parties were living separately for more than 10 years and the Court came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had to be irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation and therefore the Court directed that the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. 15. 15. In view of the enunciation of judge made law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards cruelty not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act and applied to the facts in hand, we are of the considered opinion that no interference with the judgment and decree for divorce passed by the learned trial court is called for. 16. Now, we turn to the issue as to what relief should be granted to the respondent as there is no dispute with the appellant and he is now a legally married person with two children. On the other hand, the appellant did not remarry. She is alone. She has social status. She is to be respected and accorded social and financial recognition to lead a decent and dignified life. In the opinion of this Court by invoking Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered by it in the matter of Medha Ashok Panchabhai v. Ashok Atmaram Panchabhai reported in (2010) 15 SCC 558, we grant permanent alimony of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs Only) as full and final payment payable to the appellant by the respondent in four equal installments in a span of one year. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.