JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. Appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), as well as, I.A. No. 245/13, which is an application under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act read with Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 26-7-2000 passed by II Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 23-A/1999, whereby marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground as enumerated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 2. It is an admitted fact that marriage of appellant-wife was solemnised with the respondent-husband in Bhopal on 19-5-1997 as per Hindu rites and rituals Thereafter, appellant stayed with the respondent in Bhopal and from the wedlock, they were blessed with a son on 1-4-1998. 3. Suit for divorce was filed by the respondent mainly on the ground of mental cruelty. Respondent pleaded that appellant used to ill-treat him and quarrel on petty matters. She used to threaten that she would commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance and without informing the respondent, frequently used to go to her parental home. She was in the habit of using foul language with the respondent and threatening him of incarceration. Besides this, she despised doing household chores. Respondent apprised her parents of her conduct, but instead of counseling her, they used to encourage her conduct. Within a period of six months, she visited her parental home for at least 15 times. After delivering her child, she stayed for 40 days in her parental home, and returned to her matrimonial house only after much persuasion on 20-5-1998. Thereafter, on 31-5-1998, she called her parents to her matrimonial home in the absence of respondent and after collecting household articles, jewellery clothing etc. left the house and despite several requests by the respondent, refused to return. 4. In response, appellant pleaded that she was always wiling to live with the respondent. In fact the respondent, at the behest of his parents, used to harass her and suit for divorce was also filed by the respondent at their instance only. In essence, she pleaded that she was continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent for non-fulfillment of demand for dowry. Respondent used to beat her mercilessly and get her treated at 1250 Hospital by the doctors acquainted to him. In essence, she pleaded that she was continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent for non-fulfillment of demand for dowry. Respondent used to beat her mercilessly and get her treated at 1250 Hospital by the doctors acquainted to him. She denied all the allegations leveled against her and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence brought on record found that respondent was subjected to mental cruelty by the appellant, to such an extent that revival of healthy marital relations between them was not possible and, accordingly, granted the decree of divorce in favour of respondent. 6. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that pleadings were not in conformity with the evidence of Pradeep (P.W. 1) as stated in Paragraph 5 of his deposition. It has also been submitted that "Bindi nahi lagana", "Bichiya nahi pahnana", "Mangalsutra nahin pahnana" and frequently visiting the parental home, are very trifle matters and not covered within the definition of cruelty. It was also submitted that despite the fact that respondent used to subject the appellant to physical cruelty, she is still willing to return to her matrimonial home and wants to live with the respondent, and that was the reason why she had not filed any criminal case against the respondent. He further argued that the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Trial Court are not in accordance with law and the same re liable to be set aside. Inviting our attention to the I.A. filed under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act, learned Counsel submitted that in case, decree passed by the Trial Court is upheld, then, looking to the inflation, as well as, expenses to be incurred by the appellant in future for maintaining herself and for the education of her son, the appellant and her son are entitled to get a lumpsum permanent alimony to the tune of Rupees Ten lacs. 7. In response, learned Counsel for the respondent, while inviting our attention to the evidence on record, submitted that the impugned judgment is well-merited and does not call for any interference. Adverting to the I.A., he submitted that lumpsum payment of Rs. One lac to the appellant as permanent alimony, would be sufficient in view of the fact that respondent is earning a salary of Rs. 4800/- per month only. Adverting to the I.A., he submitted that lumpsum payment of Rs. One lac to the appellant as permanent alimony, would be sufficient in view of the fact that respondent is earning a salary of Rs. 4800/- per month only. For this, attention has been drawn to the appointment letter (Annexure R-1), dated 26-2-13 issued by Modern Motors, Gandhinagar, in favour of respondent. 8. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the Trial Court was perused. 9. Paragraph 29 of the evidence of Pradeep (P.W. 1), reveals that both her sisters along with their husbands, had gone to Akola (Maharashtra) where the respondent was serving, to ask him to return to Bhopal for living with the appellant, as she was not willing to live with him at Akola. This very fact was elicited on the suggestion given by the appellant in the cross-examination of respondent. Moreover, she also admitted the said fact in Paragraph 43 of her evidence. It seems that appellant never wanted to live with the respondent at a place other than her native place Bhopal, while the respondent, due to his job, was constrained to reside at Akola. In view of the above, the allegation leveled against the appellant that she used to frequently visit her parental home, appears to be true and the stand taken by her that she was not able to go to Akola due to non-mentioning of his address in the notice served upon her, is apparently incorrect. 10. In Para 2, Pradeep also deposed that she used to abuse him and call him impotent. According to him, Bindi and Sindur were never used by her and she used to remove and throw the Mangalsutra, and this evidence remained un-rebutted. 11. In Para 19 of the impugned judgment, it was rightly held by the Trial Court that appellant herself had left the house of the respondent on 31-5-1998 with household articles and did not return till date. 12. Appellant, without assigning any reason, failed to produce her parents before the Trial Court to prove the defence taken by her. 11. In Para 19 of the impugned judgment, it was rightly held by the Trial Court that appellant herself had left the house of the respondent on 31-5-1998 with household articles and did not return till date. 12. Appellant, without assigning any reason, failed to produce her parents before the Trial Court to prove the defence taken by her. Moreover, non-filing of any complaint against the respondent in respect of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, belies the allegations leveled by her against the respondent, and the explanation given in Para 24 of her evidence, that she retained from lodging complaint apprehending that her marital life would get distributed, is also not satisfactory in view of the fact that by that time the marital ties were already stale as she was living separately for last couple of years. 13. Suresh Kumar Rohila (D.W. 2) has also deposed in Para 13 of his evidence that he was not aware about the behavior of appellant with her in-laws. 14. In Paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, has rightly held that appellant used to not only disgustingly abuse the respondent, but also call him a servant and impotent. She also used to threaten him that she would commit suicide by consuming poison and get him behind the bars. 15. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner-spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. In Para 11 of his evidence, respondent-Pradeep has deposed that it was not possible for him to live with the appellant as he apprehended that she would falsely implicate him. 16. The principle is well-established that cruelty might be inferred from the whole facts and matrimonial relations of the parties and atmosphere disclosed by evidence. The acts alleged must be considered not separately but together. When the whole conduct of the spouse shows instances of ill-treatment, use of abusive language and allegations which amounts to casting aspersions, mental cruelty would be proved. 17. This fact cannot be overlooked that all the efforts of reconciliation have already failed and both the parties are living separately from last 14 years, meaning thereby, that now it is not possible for them to live together. 18. 17. This fact cannot be overlooked that all the efforts of reconciliation have already failed and both the parties are living separately from last 14 years, meaning thereby, that now it is not possible for them to live together. 18. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly held that appellant persistently subjected the respondent to mental cruelty and it was not possible for the respondent to live with her. 19. As far as I.A. No. 245/13 is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the earning of the respondent, it would be just and proper to direct the respondent to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 4 lacs (Rupees four lacs only) to the appellant towards permanent alimony for maintaining her and their son. 20. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. However, in confirmation of the divorce decree passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of respondent, I.A. No. 245/13 is allowed in part and the respondent is directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 4 lac (Rupees four lacs only) to the appellant as permanent alimony by 30-9-2013, failing which, respondent shall also pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realisation. It is also made clear that the said amount of Rs. 4 lacs (Rupees four lacs only) shall be paid by way of a demand draft made in favour of the appellant. 21. Decree be drawn up accordingly.