JUDGMENT S.K. Palo, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2008 pronounced by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in case No. 13A/2008 HMA, by which the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(A-1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant/husband has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 2. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent are the husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 28th November, 2005 by observing Hindu Customs. 3. The factual matrix before the Trial Court was that the appellant filed a petition for a decree of divorce on the ground that two months after their marriage, the respondent wife did not observe the marital obligation. She behaved roughly with the parents of the appellant. She also insisted him to live in separate house. Thinking that time would come when everything will be normal. The appellant started living with her in separate house. But her behavior did not change. She had been quarreling with the appellant for petty matters. She always tried to insult the appellant. She left her matrimonial home 15th months ago and started living at village Kotichaar Kala with her parents. Despite several attempts to bring her by the appellant and his parents did not bring any fruitful result. 4. Appellant sent a notice through his counsel on 3.5.2007 but the respondent wife neither replied nor she restored the conjugal rights. It has further been alleged that when she left the matrimonial house, the respondent took away the ornaments, which were given to her at the time of marriage. 5. Per contra, respondent wife in the Trial Court denied all the averments and submitted that the husband/appellant and his parents were kept her happily for two months, then their behavior changed. They demanded dowry and harassed her. Respondent also claimed that she lived with her parents of the appellant at Vidisha whereas the notice was sent to her parental house. On 12th August 2007 after the "Sravan ceremony" the appellant took her to her parental house and left there. with her parents. When parents of respondent were going to Amarnath Yatra in the month of July the appellant took the respondent to the railway station, and left her and returned alone. She somehow managed to go to Khiri Road, house of appellant at Vidisha. 6. with her parents. When parents of respondent were going to Amarnath Yatra in the month of July the appellant took the respondent to the railway station, and left her and returned alone. She somehow managed to go to Khiri Road, house of appellant at Vidisha. 6. The learned Trial Court framed issues and adduced evidence of both the parties. The learned Trial Court pronounced the impugned judgment and disallowed the application under Section 13(1)(A-1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. The appellant/husband aggrieved by the judgment has filed this appeal on several grounds. He claimed that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the legal aspect and the Trial Court believed the statement of respondent without considering the contradictions which goes into the root of the case. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The only question involved is whether the respondent has committed any cruelty with the appellant as pointed under Section (1) (1-a) of Act 1955. From the record, it is evident that the relationship with her in-laws was not good after the marriage. The appellant, therefore, lived with the respondent separately from his parents. If the statement of the respondent is taken as it is, then she has been living with her parents since the day on which of her parents were leaving for Amarnath Yatra. She also narrates that till August 2007 she lived with her husband at Shamshabaad. The reports lodged by her were lodged after the present suit was instituted. First report Ex. D/1 was lodged on 7.1.2008 and Ex.D/2 and D/3 were lodged on 19.12.2007. Firstly, the report for harassment and dowry were lodged after institution of the suit, which can be considered after thought. Secondly, she has admitted that on her report at Police Station, Thana Khiri, police called both the parties and after statements, filed F.R in the case. This is admitted by the respondent in her statement. Lodging of such false report against husband and his parents deemed to be cruelty. 10. In V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 710, Mrs. Manisha Sandeep Gade Vs. This is admitted by the respondent in her statement. Lodging of such false report against husband and his parents deemed to be cruelty. 10. In V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 710, Mrs. Manisha Sandeep Gade Vs. Sandeep Vinayak Gade, AIR 2005 Bombay 180, where it has been held that:- "If one of the spouse makes allegations in proceedings pending in the Court, it would amount to mental cruelty. On these facts, the other spouse would be entitled divorce." 11. In a similar case Pinki Jain Vs. Sanjay Jain, AIR 2005 Delhi 273, it has been held that lodging of false complaint would also amount to mental cruelty. 12. She has also alleged that the appellant has obtained Rs. 50,000/- from her father. But in her cross examination she has agreed that no amount has been taken by the appellant from her father. Therefore, there is no reason to lodge a report. She also agrees to the suggestion that her in laws did not want to keep them at Shamshabaad, therefore, her husband took her at Vidisha. This is also indicative of the behavior of the respondent towards her in laws. 13. Appellant has examined Gyan Bhadoriya (PW-2), who has been very consistent in his statement and stood the rest of cross examination. He has narrated the incident of altercation between the appellant and respondent and the rude behavior of the respondent. 14. In matrimonial case, the Court has to be adjudicated the matter on the principle of "preponderance of probability''. The chances of finding eye witness is very remote. Therefore, it would be appropriate to appreciate the evidence of Gyan Bhadoriya (PW-2). 15. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh,, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , it has held by the Apex Court that:- "Cruelty is something that cannot be explicitly cast in a particular mode, as regards what is and what may not amount to cruelty. The Supreme Court has stated that, however as a result of some situations, the marriage may become a fiction, and though supported by a legal hue, such a bond ought to be severed." 16. In the present case, the respondent wife pleaded that it was because of mental cruelty caused to her, she was forced to desert the appellant, but she has utterly failed to prove the same. 17. In the present case, the respondent wife pleaded that it was because of mental cruelty caused to her, she was forced to desert the appellant, but she has utterly failed to prove the same. 17. On the basis of above discussions, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant/husband. But we are not oblivious of the respondent right to alimony. The appellant husband is admittedly working in a Yamaha Showroom at Shamshabaad and respondent/wife has no earning. We are profitable refer to follow the principle laid down in U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 where the Apex Court has stated that:- "Grant of permanent alimony to wife "Factors to be considered. No arithmetic formula, held, can be adopted therefore." However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account "Duty of Court is to see that wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury." Though living need not be luxurious, Court has to act with pragmatic sensibility that wife does not need any kind of man-made misfortune." 18. Looking to the standard of the appellant and respondent, we fix one time permanent alimony Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs) which shall be deposited before the learned Family Court out of which Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of respondent in nationalized bank which would be utilized for her benefit. The deposit shall be made in such a manner so that the appellant wife would be in a position to draw quarterly interest. Rest amount be paid to the appellant by account payee cheque for meeting her immediate needs: Appellant/husband has to deposit the amount of alimony in the Family Court, Gwalior in the following manner (1) 50% of the amount has to be paid within thirty days from today. (2) 25% be deposited within two months from the deposit of first installment. (3) Another 25% be deposited in the Family Court within two months from the date of second installment. If appellant/husband fails to deposit the said amount, the decree of divorce in his favour will be deemed inoperative. 19. Accordingly, appeal allowed to the extent as indicated herein above.