JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.3.2006 rendered by the Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer Fast Track Court), Solan in Case No. 21FT/3 of 2005/2004. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the appellant. Marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of May, 1981. In the month of Shravan, appellant left her matrimonial home for staying with her parents. However, the appellant did not return despite many efforts and requests made by the respondent. She refused to join his company. He filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Petition No. 13-S/3 of 1982. Appellant gave a statement in the court of learned District Judge Solan on 23.2.1983 that she was ready and willing to join his society. In view of this, petition was dismissed. However, appellant failed to join his company. His family members also went to bring her back but to no avail. In the month of April/May, 1985, appellant made a conditional offer to join his society. They resided in Shimla upto July, 1988. She again left in the month of August, 1988. His relations made various efforts to resolve the matter. Appellant filed two successive petitions under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also filed a petition for custody of children in the court of District Judge, Solan bearing No. 2-A/2 of 1991. They both started living in Shimla. However, in the month of July, 1996, his mother was taken from their village to Shila for medical treatment. He left appellant at village Manol. She stayed there for 8-10 days and thereafter she came to Shimla. Thereafter, she lodged a false complainant against him and his mother for offence under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He and his mother were acquitted vide judgment dated 31.1.2002. These acts of appellant amounted to cruelty. Appellant also made false allegations against him in the society. His mental and physical health was affected. She used to misbehave with him in front of his friends. She also used to say that he and his family members were greedy. He and his mother were acquitted vide judgment dated 31.1.2002. These acts of appellant amounted to cruelty. Appellant also made false allegations against him in the society. His mental and physical health was affected. She used to misbehave with him in front of his friends. She also used to say that he and his family members were greedy. She has also leveled allegations of illicit relations with lady, named Champa Devi. 3. Petition was contested by the appellant. Appellant has denied the averments made in the petition. She has admitted that respondent had filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and during the trial of such proceedings she made statement that she was ready and willing to join the company of respondent. However, respondent did not permit her to join his company. She filed petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has denied making of a conditional offer of living in Shimla. 4. Issues were framed by the District Judge, Solan. He allowed the petition on 17.3.2006. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that respondent has failed to prove that he was subjected to physical or mental cruelty. He then contended that the ingredients of cruelty have not been proved. 6. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment and decree dated 17.3.2006. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Respondent Nirmal Verma has led his evidence by way of affidavit. He has reiterated the averments contained in the petition. According to the averments made in the affidavit, marriage was solemnized in the month of May, 1981. Appellant went to her maternal home but did not come back after one month. He was constrained to file petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Appellant made statement that she was ready and willing to join his company. However, she failed to join his company. In the month of April/May, 1985, appellant made conditional offer to join his society. They lived together upto July, 1988. Thereafter, appellant again left his company. She filed two successive petitions under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Conciliation was attempted by the learned District Judge in custody proceedings. She agreed to join the company of respondent. In the month of April/May, 1985, appellant made conditional offer to join his society. They lived together upto July, 1988. Thereafter, appellant again left his company. She filed two successive petitions under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Conciliation was attempted by the learned District Judge in custody proceedings. She agreed to join the company of respondent. However, she again left in the year 1996. She also filed FIR against him under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted by the trial court on 31.1.2002. Appellant was making false allegations against him to the extent that he was having illicit relations with Champa Devi. She used to misbehave with him in front of his friends. Efforts were made by his family members to bring her back, but of no avail. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that appellant left for her parents house in the month of August, 1981. Elder son was borne in the year 1982. His father went to the house of appellants’ maternal home in the year 1981 and also in the year 1982. However, she refused to join him. He has denied the suggestion that he did not permit the appellant to stay in his house. He has denied the suggestion that on 5.8.1996 he gave beatings to the appellant and confined her in his house. 9. PW-2 Ramesh Thakur has led his evidence by filing affidavit. According to the averments made in the affidavit, in the year 1988, appellant withdrew from the society of respondent. There was no custom of demanding or giving dowry in their area. In the year 1996, appellant came to village and after 20-25 days went to village Sujailla and thereafter lodged a false complaint against the respondent. Appellant has levelled false allegations against the respondent and his mother. The allegations according to his knowledge were false. Appellant has subjected the respondent to cruelty. Propaganda made by appellant has adversely affected the mental and physical health of respondent. Thus, it was not possible for him to live with appellant. 10. PW-3 Kripal Singh has also led his evidence by filing affidavit. He has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Ramesh Thakur. He was also cross-examined. He belongs to village Bahwan. It was at a distance of 13 KMs from the village of respondent. He knew respondent since 1982. Thus, it was not possible for him to live with appellant. 10. PW-3 Kripal Singh has also led his evidence by filing affidavit. He has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Ramesh Thakur. He was also cross-examined. He belongs to village Bahwan. It was at a distance of 13 KMs from the village of respondent. He knew respondent since 1982. He had no personal knowledge during which period appellant had been staying with the respondent since her marriage. However, he has gained knowledge about these facts from the brother of respondent, namely, Rajesh. 11. PW-4 Jai Singh has also led his affidavit by way of affidavit. It is averred in the affidavit that marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of May, 1981. They were having two children. Respondent has visited village Sujailla to bring appellant. However, appellant refused to join the society of respondent. Appellant made statement in the court that she was ready and willing to join the society of respondent. In view of this, petition was dismissed. They lived together from 1985 to 1988. In the year 1988, appellant withdrew from the society of the respondent. In the month of July, 1996 appellant came to village and after 20-25 days went to village Sujailla. Thereafter, appellant lodged a false complaint against the respondent and his mother. He was also cross-examined. He was not aware for how much period, parties lived together at Shimla. 12. PW-5 Amar Singh is the brother of respondent. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit. He has supported the version of his brother PW-1 Nirmal Singh. 13. PW-6 Bhoop Ram has also led his evidence by filing affidavit. He was also cross-examined. He knew the respondent being the member of the Hotel Workers Union. 14. Appellant Anita has appeared as RW-1 and has led her evidence by filing affidavit. She has specifically averred in the affidavit that she used to abide the commands of her in-laws. Respondent never wanted to keep her in his company. He used to taunt her. She never refused to stay with respondent in the year 1981. She made statement before the Court in proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act that she was ready and willing to live with respondent. However, her husband did not take her with him. She herself went to her in-laws house. He used to taunt her. She never refused to stay with respondent in the year 1981. She made statement before the Court in proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act that she was ready and willing to live with respondent. However, her husband did not take her with him. She herself went to her in-laws house. The family members of respondent never come to take her with them. She has never pressurized her husband to stay at Shimla. Her husband compelled her to leave the matrimonial house. He has refused to pay the maintenance. His parents started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She has never made any false allegations against her husband. She has never indulged in character assassination. She did not know Champa. In her cross-examination, she could not narrate the date on which she was given beatings by her husband. She has admitted about the filing of cases under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has admitted that she has filed a case against her husband and his mother. 15. Appellant’s father Paras Ram has appeared as RW-2. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.RW-2/A and has supported the version of RW-1 Anita. 16. RW-3 Baldev Singh has also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.RW-3/A. He has also supported the version of RW-1 Anita. 17. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of May, 1981. Appellant remained in the company of respondent for few months and thereafter she went to her parents’ house. She did not come back. Respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In these proceedings, appellant made a statement that she was ready and willing to live with respondent. They stayed together from 1985 to 1988. Thereafter, appellant also stayed with respondent upto 1996. Appellant had filed a case against the respondent under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent and his mother were acquitted by the trial court on 31.1.2002. Appellant had also filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent. Family members of the respondent had also gone to the parental house of appellant from time to time. Respondent and his mother were acquitted by the trial court on 31.1.2002. Appellant had also filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent. Family members of the respondent had also gone to the parental house of appellant from time to time. It has come on record that appellant used to make false allegations and also indulged in character assassination against the respondent. According to the appellant, she was given beatings by the respondent but she could not substantiate this plea. Respondent was always ready and willing to keep the appellant with him. It is the appellant, who has refused to live with him under one pretext or the other. Respondent and his mother have been acquitted by the trial court, as noticed hereinabove. It has come on record that family of respondent has never demanded any dowry. Appellant has remained in the company of respondent for few days in the year 1981. They lived together from 1985 to 1988. She again left the company of respondent without cogent reason. Respondent has proved the plea of desertion by leading tangible evidence. Appellant has subjected the respondent to physical and mental cruelty. She used to misbehave and humiliate respondent in front of his friends and family members. She has also alleged false allegations against the character of respondent. It has also come on record that physical and mental health of respondent was adversely affected. 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 have held that the conduct of wife in publicizing in newspapers that her husband was a womanizer and a drunkard, wild allegations about an extramarital relationship, effort to prosecute him in criminal litigation under sections 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which ultimately resulted in acquittal, caused deep mental pain, agony, suffering and frustration to appellant husband and mental cruelty is sufficient to make out ground for divorce under section 13 (1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Their Lordships have held as under: “22. The expression 'cruelty' has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 23. Their Lordships have held as under: “22. The expression 'cruelty' has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status. 23. In Sirajmohamedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and another, 1981 4 SCC 250 a two-Judge Bench approved the concept of legal cruelty as expounded in Sm. Pancho v. Ram Prasad, 1956 AIR(All) 41 wherein it was stated thus:- "Conception of legal cruelty undergoes changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. With the advancement of our social conceptions, this featurehas obtained legislative recognition that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for separate residence and separate maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which may undermine the health of a wife." It is apt to note here that the said observations were made while dealing with the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (19 of 1946). This Court, after reproducing the passage, has observed that the learned Judge has put his finger on the correct aspect and object of mental cruelty. [24] In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, 1988 1 SCC 105 while dealing with 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, this Court observed that the said provision does not define 'cruelty' and the same could not be defined. The 'cruelty' may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulty. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state as follows: - "First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, 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, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. Second, 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, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted." [25] After so stating, this Court observed about the marked change in life in modern times and the sea change in matrimonial duties and responsibilities. It has been observed that when a spouse makes a complaint about treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. 26. Their Lordships referred to the observations made in Sheldon v. Sheldon, 1966 2 AllER 257 wherein Lord Denning stated, "the categories of cruelty are not closed". Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus: - "Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. These preliminary observations are intended to emphasise that the court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family life. The court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider their particular grievance. As Lord Ried observed in Gollins v. Gollins, 1963 2 AllER 966: In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are dealing with this man or this woman." [27] In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), 1994 1 SCC 337 a two-Judge Bench referred to the amendment that had taken place in Sections 10 and 13(1)(ia) after the Hindu Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 and proceeded to hold that the earlier requirement that such cruelty has caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a spouse that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with the other one is no longer the requirement. Thereafter, this Court proceeded to deal with what constitutes mental cruelty as contemplated in Section 13(1)(ia) and observed that mental cruelty in the said provision 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. To put it differently, the 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 cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It was further observed, while arriving at such conclusion, that 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. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case and it has to be determined in each case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case. That apart, the accusations and allegations have to be scrutinized in the context in which they are made. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case and it has to be determined in each case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case. That apart, the accusations and allegations have to be scrutinized in the context in which they are made. Be it noted, in the said case, this Court quoted extensively from the allegations made in the written statement and the evidence brought on record and came to hold that the said allegations and counter allegations were not in the realm of ordinary plea of defence and did amount to mental cruelty. [21] In Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, 2002 AIR(SC) 2582 it has been held that mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Mental cruelty cannot be established by direct evidence and 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 facts and circumstances are to be assessed emerging from the evidence on record and thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to the conduct of the other. 52. Immense emphasis has been given on the fact that after publication of the notice, the husband had filed a caveat in the court. The factual matrix would reveal that the husband comes from a respectable family engaged in business. At the time of publication of the notice, the sons were quite grown up. The respondent-wife did not bother to think what impact it would have on the reputation of the husband and what mental discomfort it would cause. It is manifest from the material on record that the children were staying with the father. They were studying in the school and the father was taking care of everything. Such a publication in the newspaper having good circulation can cause trauma, agony and anguish in the mind of any reasonable man. It is manifest from the material on record that the children were staying with the father. They were studying in the school and the father was taking care of everything. Such a publication in the newspaper having good circulation can cause trauma, agony and anguish in the mind of any reasonable man. The explanation given by the wife to the effect that she wanted to protect the interests of the children, as we perceive, is absolutely incredible and implausible. The filingof a caveat is wholly inconsequential. In fact, it can decidedly be said that it was mala fide and the motive was to demolish the reputation of the husband in the society by naming him as a womaniser, drunkard and a man of bad habits. [53] At this stage, we may fruitfully reminisce a poignant passage from N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, 1975 3 SCR 967 wherein Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed thus: - "The court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and an ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures." [54] Regard being had to the aforesaid, we have to evaluate the instances. In our considered opinion, a normal reasonable man is bound to feel the sting and the pungency. The conduct and circumstances make it graphically clear that the respondent-wife had really humiliated him and caused mental cruelty. Her conduct clearly exposits that it has resulted in causing agony and anguish in the mind of the husband. She had publicised in the newspapers that he was a womaniser and a drunkard. She had made wild allegations about his character. She had made an effort to prosecute him in criminal litigations which she had failed to prove. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious. 55. It can be stated with certitude that the cumulative effect of the evidence brought on record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of the husband is obvious. 55. It can be stated with certitude that the cumulative effect of the evidence brought on record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable. The husband felt humiliated both in private and public life. Indubitably, it created a dent in his reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity. Thus analysed, it would not be out of place to state that his brain and the bones must have felt the chill of humiliation. The dreams sweetly grafted with sanguine fondness with the passage of time reached the Everstine disaster, possibly, with a vow not to melt. The cathartic effect looked like a distant mirage. The cruel behaviour of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the husband because he has been treated as an unperson. Thus, analysed, it is abundantly clear that with this mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her. Therefore, he is entitled to a decree for divorce.” 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 have held that false complaint/criminal proceedings, indecent/ defamatory statements made in complaint singly and cumulatively amount to mental cruelty warranting grant of divorce. Their Lordships have further held that when the complaint under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code alleging ill-treatment and harassment for dowry was found falsely lodged, indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that husband and his parents were put in jail. This certainly constituted cruelty. Their Lordships have held as under: “[16] Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. This certainly constituted cruelty. Their Lordships have held as under: “[16] Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse. [27] We need to now see the effect of the above events. In our opinion, the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the respondent-wife in her complaint dated 4/10/1999 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell. The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to us to be justified. This complaint is a part of the record. It is a part of the pleadings. That this statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellanthusband. [28] Pursuant to this complaint, the police registered a case under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant-husband and his parents had to apply for anticipatory bail, which was granted to them. Later, the respondent-wife withdrew the complaint. Pursuant to the withdrawal, the police filed a closure report. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a protest petition. The trial court took cognizance of the case against the appellant-husband and his parents (CC No. 62/2002). The appellant-husband and his parents had to apply for anticipatory bail, which was granted to them. Later, the respondent-wife withdrew the complaint. Pursuant to the withdrawal, the police filed a closure report. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a protest petition. The trial court took cognizance of the case against the appellant-husband and his parents (CC No. 62/2002). What is pertinent to note is that the respondent-wife filed criminal appeal in the High Court challenging the acquittal of the appellant-husband and his parents of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the acquittal of his parents of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. She filed criminal revision seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to the appellant-husband for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in the High Court which is still pending. When the criminal appeal filed by the appellant-husband challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed and he was acquitted, the respondent-wife filed criminal appeal in the High Court challenging the said acquittal. During this period respondent-wife and members of her family have also filed complaints in the High Court complaining about the appellant-husband so that he would be removed from the job. The conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her motherin-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband. [29] In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that because the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did not stay together there is no question of the parties causing cruelty to each other. Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This is what has happened in this case. [30] It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent- wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. [31] We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree. [32] In V. Bhagat this Court noted that divorce petition was pending for eight years and a good part of the lives of both the parties had been consumed in litigation, yet the end was not in sight. The facts were such that there was no question of reunion, the marriage having irretrievably broken down. While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty this Court observed that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself, but, while scrutinizing the evidence on record to determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and in determining the relief to be granted the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. 33. While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty this Court observed that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself, but, while scrutinizing the evidence on record to determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and in determining the relief to be granted the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. 33. In Naveen Kohli, where husband and wife had been living separately for more than 10 years and a large number of criminal proceedings had been initiated by the wife against the husband, this Court observed that the marriage had been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage and public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. It is important to note that in this case this Court made a recommendation to the Union of India that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be amended to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. [34] In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondentwife has caused by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellanthusband and the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides of pain and anguish. In this Court the respondent-wife expressed that she wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is not possible now. The appellant-husband is not willing to take her back. Even if we refuse decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, there are hardly any chances of the respondent-wife leading a happy life with the appellant-husband because a lot of bitterness is created by the conduct of the respondent-wife. [35] In Vijay Kumar, it was submitted that if the decree of divorce is set aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope for reconciliation between parties. This court observed that judged in the background of all surrounding circumstances, the claim appeared to be too desolate, merely born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine purpose or aim. In the facts of this case we feel the same. [36] While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce must be granted, we are alive to the plight of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband is working as an Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He is getting a good salary. In the facts of this case we feel the same. [36] While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce must be granted, we are alive to the plight of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband is working as an Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He is getting a good salary. The respondent-wife fought the litigation for more than 10 years. She appears to be entirely dependent on her parents and on her brother, therefore, her future must be secured by directing the appellanthusband to give her permanent alimony. In the facts and circumstance of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellanthusband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. 37. In the result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The marriage between the appellant-husband - K. Srinivas Rao and the respondent-wife - D.A. Deepa is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife permanent alimony in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) should be paid on 15/03/2013 and the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) should be paid in instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each after a gap of two months i.e. on 15/05/2013 and 15/07/2013 respectively. Each instalment of Rs.5,00,000/- be paid by a demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent-wife "D.A. Deepa". 20. The court below has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by the District Judge, Solan. 21. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.