JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As both these appeals are interconnected and arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara, both these petitions are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Family Suit (Hindu Marriage Petition No.) No. 1698 of 2010, by which the learned Family Court has dismissed the said suit/Hindu Marriage Petition and has refused to pass decree of divorce and has refused to dissolve the marriage, the original applicant - husband has preferred First Appeal No. 1439 of 2016. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Family Suit No. 1649 of 2010, by which the learned Family Court has decreed the said suit and has passed the decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife-original applicant, original opponent-husband has preferred the present First Appeal No. 1549 of 2016. 4. The marriage between the parties - appellant husband and respondent wife was solemnized on 23/1/1999. That during the wedlock there was one daughter in the year 2010. 5. That the respondent wife filed Family Suit No. 1649 of 2010 for decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. That immediately thereafter, the appellant husband filed Family Suit/Hindu Marriage Petition No. 1698 of 2010 for decree of divorce/dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. It was the case on behalf of the respondent wife that without any reasonable cause, the appellant husband deserted her and she is compelled to stay at her matrimonial house. 8. On the other-hand, the respondent husband filed Family Suit/(Hindu Marriage Petition) No. 1698 of 2010, for decree for dissolution of marriage. It was the case on behalf of the husband that nature of the wife is quarrelsome and suspicious. And she and her father used to file complaints against him before Mahila Police Station and another police station. It was further submitted that in the year 2001, wife went to her parents house and despite his best efforts to bring her back, she did not return to the matrimonial house. And she and her father used to file complaints against him before Mahila Police Station and another police station. It was further submitted that in the year 2001, wife went to her parents house and despite his best efforts to bring her back, she did not return to the matrimonial house. However, thereafter there was settlement and both the husband and wife stayed in a rented house. 9. Therefore, it was requested to pass decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. Both the aforesaid suit came to be consolidated and tried together. Both the parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court has decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife by observing and giving finding that the husband has deserted and neglected wife without any reasonable cause and reason. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Family Court has dismissed the suit preferred by the husband and has refused to pass decree under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act by specifically observing that the husband has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned family Court in passing decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife and refusing to decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of husband, husband has preferred present First Appeals. 12. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant husband and Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate, appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee has appeared on behalf of the respondent wife. 13. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has vehemently submitted that the learned Family Court has materially erred in refusing to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of mental cruelty. 14. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has further submitted that the learned Family Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that wife frequently used to file criminal complaints against the husband which itself tantamount to mental cruelty. 15. Mr. 14. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has further submitted that the learned Family Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that wife frequently used to file criminal complaints against the husband which itself tantamount to mental cruelty. 15. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has further submitted that in the year 2001 one complaint was given by the father of the wife with Gorba Police station and in the year 2010, the wife filed complaint with Mahila Police Station. It is submitted that therefore, the aforesaid conduct on the part of the wife and her father tantamount to mental cruelty. 16. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has further submitted that one communication was sent at the address of the husband which has affected his image in his service. It is submitted that the aforesaid conduct on the part of the wife and her father tantamount to mental cruelty which would warrant grant of decree of divorce. 17. In support of his above submission, Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 and in the case of Malathi Ravi M.D. v. B.V. Ravi M.D. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 640 . 18. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malathi Ravi M.D. (supra), it is submitted by Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband that as both the husband and wife are residing separate since many years, and there is no possibility of reunion and therefore, it can be seen that marriage has irretrievably broken down and therefore, it is requested to dissolve the marriage between the husband and wife on the aforesaid ground also. No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to admit/allow present appeals and to set aside the judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by the learned family court in favour of the wife and to pass a decree of divorce in favour of the husband under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 19. 19. Both these Appeals are vehemently opposed by Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent wife. It is submitted that as such there are findings on facts recorded by the learned Family Court holding that the appellant husband has deserted and/or neglected wife without any reasonable cause. 20. Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent wife has further submitted that despite the fact that the husband was harassing and/or ill-treating her still in the larger interest of the children, she is still ready and willing to continue her matrimonial life with the husband. However, despite the best efforts, the appellant husband has refused to reside with the wife. It is submitted that therefore, as such no error has been committed by the learned Family Court in passing decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 21. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court refusing to pass decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent wife has vehemently submitted that merely because the wife had approached Mahila Police station for filing complaint, that by itself cannot be said to be a mental cruelty. It is submitted that if the wife who is ill-treated by the husband does not make complaint before the Mahila Police Station, then where she would make the grievance about the ill-treatment by husband. It is submitted that unless and until it is found and/or established that reckless and baseless allegations are made in the complaint and that too by number of complaints/criminal cases, it may amount to cruelty. It is submitted that is not the case here. It is submitted that on the basis of what had happened in the year 2001, the husband cannot get divorce in the year 2010, as in the year 2001 the matter was amicably settled between the parties and both the husband and wife thereafter lived together for man years i.e. till 2010. It is submitted that therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 22. Making above submission it is requested to dismiss both the appeals. 23. It is submitted that therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 22. Making above submission it is requested to dismiss both the appeals. 23. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record from the Paper Book produced by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband. 24. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned common judgment and decree the learned Family Court has passed the judgment and decree of conjugal rights in favour of the wife and against the husband and has refused to pass decree of divorce and/or refused to dissolve the marriage under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 25. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court has specifically observed and given finding that the appellant husband has deserted and/or neglected wife without any reasonable reason and despite the fact that the wife is still ready and willing to continue the matrimonial relation and stay with the husband, no efforts are being made by the husband to continue the matrimonial relationship and stay with the wife and children. Even before this Court also we asked the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband whether the appellant husband is ready and willing to stay with the wife or not. The husband has bluntly refused to stay with the wife. 26. It is the case on behalf of the appellant husband that as in the year 2010 wife had filed complaint before Mahila Police Station, it tantamount to cruelty. It is also the case on behalf of the appellant husband that in the year 2001 father of the wife had filed a complaint before Gorva Police Station making baseless allegations and therefore, the same tantamount to mental cruelty. It is also the case on behalf of the appellant husband that earlier in the year 2001 father of the wife sent a complaint/notice to the husband at his office address and therefore, it has affected his service prospectus. It is also the case on behalf of the appellant husband that earlier in the year 2001 father of the wife sent a complaint/notice to the husband at his office address and therefore, it has affected his service prospectus. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant husband has therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malathi Ravi, M.D. (supra) has requested to pass decree of divorce and to dissolve the marriage between the parties. 27. That on re-appreciation of evidence we are also of the of the opinion that no case of mental cruelty by the wife is made out, as alleged by the husband which warrants dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Mere filing of a complaint by the wife against the husband before the Mahila Police Station making allegation of ill-treatment by husband, does not amount to mental cruelty. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the marriage has been solemnized in the year 1999 and thereafter there was some dispute in the year 2001, however, the same came to be dissolved and thereafter both the husband and wife stayed together upto 2010 and out of the wedlock, they got one daughter and one son. In the cross-examination the husband has admitted that during the period from 2001 to 2010 there were some dispute between them on ordinary things. He admitted that thereafter the relation strained because of his relation with one another lady named Samixa and since 2010 wife is staying at her parental house. Therefore, what has happened the year 2001 cannot be considered in the year 2010 because for the period from 2002 to 2010 as such both the husband and wife stayed together. Even thereafter when the dispute started in the year 2010 and thereafter when the wife filed complaint before the Mahila Police stat on about ill-treatment by husband to her, we are of the opinion that on the aforesaid ground husband is not entitled to decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. If the wife approached the Mahila Police Station with the grievance that she is ill-treated by her husband, that itself does not amount to mental cruelty. The wife has right to make complaint under relevant Acts. If the wife approached the Mahila Police Station with the grievance that she is ill-treated by her husband, that itself does not amount to mental cruelty. The wife has right to make complaint under relevant Acts. Only in a case where false complaints or criminal proceedings are initiated in which indecent and defamatory statements are made, it may not amount to mental cruelty. Even as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao (supra) making indecent/ defamatory allegations against spouse or his/her relatives in pleadings, filing repeated false complaints or cases in Court, issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on business prospects or job of spouse, etc., are the cases of illustrative cases of mental cruelty which would warrant grant of divorce. 28. In the present case, such is not the case. Only one complaint is field by the wife with the Mahila Police station and nothing has been pointed out that in the said complaint any indecent or defamatory allegations are made. It is not a case of filing of repeated false complaints or criminal proceedings in the court by the respondent wife against the appellant husband. 29. Under the circumstances, when the husband has failed to prove any mental agony meted out by the wife and it has been found that the husband has neglected and/or deserted the wife without any reasonable cause, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Family court in refusing to pass decree of divorce and in passing decree of conjugal rights. 30. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as observed by the learned Family Court even after the notice in the year 2001 sent at the office address of the respondent, the respondent husband has got promotions periodically. Therefore, as such it has not affected his service career. Even otherwise, the aforesaid incident happened in the year 2001 and thereafter as observed hereinabove for 8 to 9 years, the husband and wife stayed together. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground the husband is not entitled to decree of divorce. 31. Therefore, as such it has not affected his service career. Even otherwise, the aforesaid incident happened in the year 2001 and thereafter as observed hereinabove for 8 to 9 years, the husband and wife stayed together. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground the husband is not entitled to decree of divorce. 31. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant husband that since 2010 both the husband and wife are not staying together and therefore, the husband is entitled to divorce on the ground that the marriage is irretrievably broken down is concerned, on the aforesaid ground, the husband is not entitled to decree of divorce. In the present case, it appears that in any case, the husband wants divorce as observed hereinabove. He has deserted the wife without any reasonable cause. If despite the above, decree of divorce is passed on the ground that the marriage is irretrievably broken down, it would amount to give premium to the husband who is at fault. 32. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malathi Ravi, M.D. (supra) is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised powers under section 142 of the Constitution of India and that too after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and observing that ground of mental cruelty has been made out. Under the circumstances, as such on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is required to be noted that as such in the present case the husband sought decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which for the reasons stated above, the husband is not entitled to. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Family Court in refusing to pass decree of divorce and passing decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the wife. No interference of this Court is called for in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. 33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above both the appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 34. On dismissal of the First Appeal No. 1549 of 2016, Civil Application No. 7120 of 2016 stands dismissed. 35. 33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above both the appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 34. On dismissal of the First Appeal No. 1549 of 2016, Civil Application No. 7120 of 2016 stands dismissed. 35. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.