JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is made to a judgment and decree dated 13-01-2000 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No. 20-A/1998, dismissing the application filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage. 2. Marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized at Damoh on 07-03-1991. A son was also born out of the wedlock on 16-11-1991 and on 28-10-1993 the appellant filed suit in question for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent/wife and her mother used to come and stay in their house and the respondent's mother used to ill-treat the appellant not only in the house, but also in the presence of other persons living in the locality. Respondent/wife was also a spectator and some time also participated in the acts of the mother-in- law in harassing the appellant and quoting various instances which according to the appellant constituted cruelty and further contending that the parties are living separately for certain period of time, an application was filed for dissolution of marriage. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and based on the evidence that came on record, learned Court answered the question of cruelty and dissolution against the appellant holding that both the grounds for dissolution of marriage are not established from the material available on record, the application having been dismissed, therefore, this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed. 4. Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a two fold submissions before us. He invited our attention to certain instances that were quoted for dissolution of marriage, which according to him were proved from the evidence of independent witness namely PW-6 Ambika Soni, it is submitted that the same has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. That apart he argued that the parties are living separately since 1993 and inviting our attention to the various judgments of the Supreme Court in respect of dissolution of marriage, on such consideration he seeks a decree for dissolution of marriage. That apart he argued that the parties are living separately since 1993 and inviting our attention to the various judgments of the Supreme Court in respect of dissolution of marriage, on such consideration he seeks a decree for dissolution of marriage. Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the statement of PW-6 Ambika Soni, the act of the respondent/wife and her mother-in-law narrated by this witness in the statement recorded before the court and the finding recorded by the trial court from para-22 onwards, to submit that even though the trial court held that this witness is an independent witness, but for reasons which are not justified refused to rely on his statement. Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also invited our attention to the complaints Ex.P-1 and P-2 submitted by the respondent to the competent authority of the Bank, where the appellant was working to say that the complaints of this nature made against the husband to his employer making allegations amounts to cruelty and ignoring these facts it is stated that the finding of cruelty having not recorded by the trial court is a perverse and unsustainable finding. That apart looking to the facts that the parties are living separately since 1993 and inviting our attentions to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013)5 SCC 226 , and unreported judgment by a co-ordinate bench of this court in F.A. No. 11/2004 (Ambika Prasad Soni Vs. Smt. Malti Soni), Shri Siddharth Gulatee argued that in this case even if not on the ground of cruelty, but on the ground of dissolution since 1993, a case for dissolution of the marriage is clearly made out. 5. As already indicated hereinabove inspite of notice being served on the respondent and inspite of issuing SPC, none is appearing for the respondent. That being so, we have considered the submissions made by Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the appellant and we propose to decide this appeal after going through the material available on record. 6. As far as the question of cruelty is concerned, PW-6 Ambika Prasad Soni, is Manager of the Bank, in which the appellant was working. That being so, we have considered the submissions made by Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the appellant and we propose to decide this appeal after going through the material available on record. 6. As far as the question of cruelty is concerned, PW-6 Ambika Prasad Soni, is Manager of the Bank, in which the appellant was working. From a complete reading of the statement of this witness PW-6, it is seen that he was residing at a place which was only about 50 meter steps from the residence of the parties concerned. He in his statement has given various instances to say that respondent/wife and her mother used to ill treat the appellant/husband. In para-4 of his statement he narrates a specific instances that took place in the month of April 1992. It is pointed out by him that he is staying in a house which is only 50 steps away from the house of the parties and in the morning on a particular day in April 1992, he found a crowd to have assembled in front of the house of the appellant. He went there and saw that respondent/wife and her mother were abusing appellant Pradeep Kumar. Respondent's mother was also trying to assault the appellant and she was making various allegations against him including aspiration on his character, this witness tried to intervene but it did not yield any result. He also states that the respondent also made complaint in writing to the higher authorities of the Bank making certain allegations with regard to the activities of the appellant. The learned trial court has taken note of all these factors and held that this witness PW-6 is an independent witness, however, the acts narrated by him do not amount to cruelty. The act as narrated by this witness as reproduced hereinabove and we have also gone through the complaints made by the respondents to the higher authority of the Bank Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 wherein she made various allegations against her husband of ill treatment etc. to the employer. The learned trial court has taken note of all these facts and gives a finding to say that these are the normal family disputes and a wife can always make complaint against the appellant, therefore, this do not amount to cruelty. 7. to the employer. The learned trial court has taken note of all these facts and gives a finding to say that these are the normal family disputes and a wife can always make complaint against the appellant, therefore, this do not amount to cruelty. 7. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra) the act of cruelty and in the illustrative cases which constitute the mental cruelty has been dealt with in detail. After referring to various judgments and after considering the law laid down in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007)4 SCC 511 , the Supreme Court in para-11 deals with the matter in the following manner: "11. In Samar Ghosh this Court set out illustrative cased where inference of "mental cruelty" can be drawn. This lest is obviously not exhaustive because each case presents its own peculiar factual matrix and existence or otherwise of mental cruelty will have to be judged after applying mind to it. We must quote the relevant paragraph of Samar Ghosh. We have reproduced only the instances which are relevant to the present case: (SCC pp. 546-47, para 101.) "101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive; (I) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) * * * (iv) Mental cruelty is a State of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii)-(ix) * * * (x) the married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi)-(xiii) * * * (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction through supported by a legal tie. By refusing to server that tie, the law in such cased, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." Thereafter in para-12 it has been held that if the husband and wife are living separately for more than sixteen-and-a half years this fact can also be taken note of alongwith other facts to lead to the conclusion that matrimonial bond had been ruptured beyond repair and case of mental cruelty is made out. It is held by the Supreme Court that the similar view has been also taken note of in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kothi, (2006)4 SCC 558 . Finally in paras 32, 33 and 34 the question of dissolving marriage on account of parties living separately for long period of time due to litigation and dispute, the principle is laid down to say that the same amounts to the ground for dissolution of marriage. The consideration made by the Supreme Court in paras 32, 33 and 34 in the case of K. Sriniwas Rao (supra) reads as under: 32. The consideration made by the Supreme Court in paras 32, 33 and 34 in the case of K. Sriniwas Rao (supra) reads as under: 32. In V. Bhagat this Court noted that divorce petition was pending for eight year 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 the: (SCC p. 351, para 21) "21.....irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But, while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is/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 the 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 the: (SCC P. 582, para 86) "86....The marriage has 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 Naveen Kohli 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 respondent wife has caused by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellant husband 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." 8. 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." 8. If we analyze the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the aforesaid principles and after considering the act of cruelty alleged in the petition for dissolution of marriage and the statement of PW-6 and the instances narrated by him as detailed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the facts do constitute a ground of mental cruelty as held by the Supreme Court in para-11 of the judgment in the case of K. Sriniwas Rao (supra) as produced hereinabove, On a complete consideration of the matrimonial life of the parties, it is seen that they were married on 07-03-1991, within a period of 9 months, a child was born to them on 16-11-1991 and within a period of less than one year, the disputes started surfacing resulting in initiation of proceedings for dissolution on 28-10-1993. The act of the respondent wife in making complaint to the employer, the activities of her mother-in-law as narrated by PW-6 go to show that a case of mental cruelty as contemplated under the provisions of section 13(1)(a)is made out. On consideration of the facts of the case in the backdrop of the judgment as are reproduced hereinabove and the allegations made therein, we have no hesitation in holding that not only a case of mental cruelty is made out but a case of dissolution on the ground that the parties are living separately for more than 23 years is made out and if the principles laid down in the case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra) is applied to, this is a fit case where the parties are living separately for a long time, there is no chance of repairing the difference created by the parties and therefore, the marriage has to be dissolved. We are supported in saying so in view of the observations made by a coordinate Bench of this court in the identical situation in the case of Ambika Prasad Soni (supra) and in this case also in paras 7 and 8 after considering the various judgments including the judgment in the case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra) under similar circumstances a decree for dissolution has been granted. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we allow this appeal. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and a decree in terms thereof be passed. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of.