JUDGMENT Vimla Jain, J. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1998 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Hindu Marriage Case No. 30-A/1997 thereby dismissing the case of the appellant, has filed present first appeal under Section 28of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that as per Hindu Rituals, marriage of appellant was solemnised with the respondent in Village Mongna, Tehsil Jatara of District Tikamgarh and Gauna was performed in the year 1977 when appellant was a student. In the year 1983, he joined on the post of an Assistant Professor. He was transferred from Raigarh to Tikamgarh in the year 1988 and in the year, 1990 when he was again transferred from Tikamgarh to Khurai, District Sagar, he remained with the respondent. Allegation against the respondent is that she, being an illiterate and ill-mannered lady, was not allowing his younger brother to stay with the appellant for pursuing his studies. She used to beat appellant's brother and tear his clothes. She did not even care for food of appellant and his brother. She used to abuse and quarrel with the appellant and his parents. She did not allow the appellant to perform his marital obligations and used to tell appellant that he should marry with his mother, aunt (chachi) and younger brother's wife. Out of their wedlock, one child was born who died subsequently. In the year 1991, she gave birth to female child. She alongwith her female child and jewelery left the house of appellant on 3-12-1991 and went to the house of her father. Being dissatisfied with her, appellant filed a suit under Section 13 of the Act for seeking divorce or in the alternative judicial separation against the respondent on the ground that both of them had been living separately and there was no possibility of amicable settlement between them in future. 3. The respondent/wife in her written statement pleaded that the allegations made by the appellant/husband were absurd and insulting. She also submitted that she never treated the appellant with cruelty. On the contrary, appellant was ill-treating and misbehaving with her and making absurd allegations against her. 3. The respondent/wife in her written statement pleaded that the allegations made by the appellant/husband were absurd and insulting. She also submitted that she never treated the appellant with cruelty. On the contrary, appellant was ill-treating and misbehaving with her and making absurd allegations against her. Insofar as question of desertion was concerned, she contended that she was not living separately on her own accord but in fact, she was forced to live separately because the appellant/husband was not ready and willing to live with her due to her illiteracy and dark complexion. Due to her delivery and ailment she was not able to prepare food. The appellant kicked her out and since then she had been living with her parents. She had not brought any jewelery but in fact the appellant had retained her Stridhan with him. On number of occasions, her father and brother had requested the appellant to keep respondent with him but the appellant did not agree because of her illiteracy and dark complexion and forced her to divorce. 4. On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and parties adduced their evidence. 5. The Trial Court, after analysis of the evidence adduced in the case, dismissed the petition of the appellant/husband holding that he failed to prove the grounds of divorce stated in the petition. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant has come to this Court with the prayer to allow his petition of divorce by allowing this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the cruelty had not been established is contrary to the evidence on record which duly establishes the fact that the behaviour of the respondent with the appellant and his family members was impulsive, erratic and lunatic. He further submits that it is apparent and undisputed fact on record that the parties are residing separately since 1991 and more than 21 years lapsed. In such circumstances, there is no chance to reconcile and re-establish the marital relations between them as such their marital relationship had become practically dead. According to him, the Trial Court had committed an error of law and fact in dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant. 7. In such circumstances, there is no chance to reconcile and re-establish the marital relations between them as such their marital relationship had become practically dead. According to him, the Trial Court had committed an error of law and fact in dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/wife supported the finding of the Court below by arguing that the appellant having failed to prove the cruelty on the part of the respondent, the Trial Court has rightly refused to grant decree for divorce. 8. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the records. We find that in order to establish the ground of cruelty the appellant examined himself as A.W. 1 his colleague Amitav Dubey (A.W. 2), independent witnesses Bhagirath (A.W. 3), Nannu Singh (A.W. 4) and Tulshi (A.W. 5), who is the father of appellant. Whereas respondent has examined herself as D.W. 1 and her younger brother Rajaram (D.W. 2). 9. Before appreciating the evidence on record the concept of cruelty is to be clarified. The Apex Court, in the case of Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 , defined cruelty as under:-- “Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subject to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.” 10. In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, AIR SCW 163, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that expression "cruelty" has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. To constitute cruelty, conduct complained of should be grave and weighty for arriving at conclusion that petitioner spouse cannot be reasonable expected to live with other spouse. 11. In the light of above principles of law, we have to examine the evidence on record in order to determine whether case of cruelty has been established. 12. Dashrath Prasad Yadav (A.W. 1), appellant husband categorically stated that he was married with the respondent in the year 1977, when he was a student of 10th Class. After 1-1/2 years, respondent used to raise unnecessary quarrel and dispute with him. She used to refuse for preparation of the food and threatened that she would mix poison in food. She also threatened that she would commit suicide. He further stated that she did not allow him to perform his marital obligations and told him that he should marry with his own sister and mother. He further stated that respondent/wife abused and misbehaved with his parents and brother. Appellant's friend Amitav Dubey (A.W. 2) supported the evidence of the appellant about erratic behaviour of the respondent with the appellant. He stated that respondent humiliated and abused the appellant/husband in presence of his colleagues. Two independent witnesses namely Bhagirath (A.W. 3) and Nannu Singh (A.W. 4), also stated that the respondent used to raise unnecessary quarrel and dispute with the appellant and used to abuse him and his family members. Father of appellant Tulshi (A.W. 5) also supported the statement of appellant and stated that respondent always misbehaved and quarrel with him, his wife, his younger son and appellant. Father of appellant Tulshi (A.W. 5) also supported the statement of appellant and stated that respondent always misbehaved and quarrel with him, his wife, his younger son and appellant. She did not perform the house hold activities and always used to refuse for preparation of the food. 13. As against the aforesaid evidence led by the appellant, in rebuttal the respondent wife examined herself and her younger brother. It is noted that the respondent in her deposition did not deny the allegations levelled by the appellant, she only stated that appellant was not willing to live with her due to her dark complexion and illiteracy. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence available on record, in our considered view the learned Trial Court has committed error in holding that the appellant failed to prove cruelty on the part of the respondent and in drawing the inference against the appellant. The Trial Court has erred in treating the aforesaid evidence to be not sufficient to record a finding that the respondent was cruel with the appellant. We find that there is ample evidence available on record to reach to the conclusion that after solemnisation of marriage with the appellant, the respondent treated him with cruelty by raising unnecessary quarrels, using filthy abuses, not preparing the food, threatening of mixing poison in food and threatening to commit suicide. In such premises, it is held that the ground of cruelty has been proved by the appellant. Therefore, findings of the impugned judgment being contrary to record are not sustainable. Hence, the said order is hereby set aside. 15. It also appears from the evidence led by the parties that they have been living separately over considerable length of time. Since the year of 1991 respondent had been residing with her parents. Since then, no physical and marital relation took place between applicant and the respondent, which also indicates that their marriage has broken down. It can well be assumed that the matrimonial bond between the parties cannot be repaired. In these circumstances, the statement made by the respondent/wife that she is willing to live with the appellant cannot be believed, particularly when she has admittedly been living separately from her husband for 22 years without making any endeavour to revive her matrimonial tie with the appellant. Thus, it appears that there has been irretrievable break down of their marriage. 16. Thus, it appears that there has been irretrievable break down of their marriage. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, reported in 2006 (3) MPLJ 1, Para 72 has observed as under:-- “Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The Court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties, yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage, which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.” 17. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence and the legal position, we have reached to the inevitable conclusion that the appellant is entitled to decree of divorce. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-7-98 passed in Hindu Marriage Case No. 30-A/1997 by 2nd Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh by dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant/husband. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.