JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Ms. Usha Devi Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The appellant has felt aggrieved by dismissal of Suit No. 1105 of 2008 filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 vide impugned judgment dated 7.2.2013 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur. 3. Brief facts are that marriage of appellant was solemnized on 22.12.1992 with the respondent and it was solemnized in Arya Samaj Temple in Govind Nagar at Kanpur. Both had been in deep love of each other. The appellant married the respondent despite opposition of her family members. At the time of marriage the family of appellant gave about one and half lacs rupees to family members of respondent. The appellant went to matrimonial home of respondent and out of married life they had two children. The family members of respondent were pressuring the appellant to pressure family members to see that respondent undertook some vocation and earn money. The appellant time and again requested the respondent to start some business but whenever she would say this the respondent would beat her and would torture her. On 3.3.1995 daughter Diksha was born. Because the appellant had given birth to a daughter, she was ill treated by respondent and time and again she was subjected to harassment. The family members of appellant wanted Rs. Five Lac so that respondent could start his shop in Kanpur Nagar. However the respondent took away all the jewellery of appellant. The respondent pressurized the appellant for Rs. Five Lac once again from parents so that he could do some business. Since 2005 when she became very sick, her father took her to the parental home with her children and she was there till October. During her illness neither respondent nor his family members ever came to take care of her nor send any money for her treatment and even refused to pay for expenses of child and therefore appellant filed the said petition to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. 4. Respondent has filed reply denying all these facts, and has stated that she is not an illiterate person. She has studied upto B.A and has done computer through NIIT (NET) and works with Reliance Web World, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur and earning Rs. 5000/- per month in the year 2005-06. 4. Respondent has filed reply denying all these facts, and has stated that she is not an illiterate person. She has studied upto B.A and has done computer through NIIT (NET) and works with Reliance Web World, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur and earning Rs. 5000/- per month in the year 2005-06. That is why she does not came back to married home. Even she is working at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Law College, Bithoor, as clerk and earns Rs. 8000/- per month. At present when petition was filed, she was working with Anil Steel Industries, Gadariyanpurwa, House No. 123/83, Fazalganj, Kanpur. The opponent never opposed engagement of appellant and was being paid Rs. 5000/- but when he asked for accounts and money he was thrown away. The respondent loves his children too much and he denied all the allegations of gift/dowry. 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that appellant is living separately since eleven years. Trial Court has misread the evidence and it is submitted that Court below has committed manifest error in not believing the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 who have testified about commission of cruelty on part of DW-1 is concerned. The findings of fact that there was no cruelty perpetrated by husband is bad in eye of law. In this case appellant has proved that respondent perpetrated cruelty time and again on her namely in the year 1995-96 she had to write a letter at Police Station Kalyanpur showing ill treatment received by her and two children. 7. As far as the issue of cruelty is concerned, it is appropriate to state how the said concept has been viewed by Apex Court. In Vinit Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778 , wherein while dealing with the issue of mental cruelty, the Court held as follows: “31. It is settled by a catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. It is settled by a catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case. Xxx xxx xxx 35. Each case depends on its own facts and must be judged on these facts. The concept of cruelty has varied from time to time, from place to place and from individual to individual in its application according to social status of the persons involved and their economic conditions and other matters. The question whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the parties. In this connection, the culture, temperament and status in life and many other things are the factors which have to be considered.” 8. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , this Court has given certain illustrative examples wherefrom inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. The Court itself has observed that they are illustrative and not exhaustive. We think it appropriate to reproduce some of the illustrations: “(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. xxx xxx xxx (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. xxx xxx xxx (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. xxx xxx xxx (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. xxx xxx xxx (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where [pic]the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. xxx xxx xxx (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 though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, 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.” 9. In the said case the Court also observed: “99. ... The human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances....” 10. In Vishwanath Agrawal, s/o Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 , while dealing with mental cruelty, it has been opined thus: “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.” 11. In the said case, analyzing the subsequent events and the conduct of the wife, who was responsible for publication in a newspaper certain humiliating aspects about the husband, the Court held as follows: “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.” 12. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 , while dealing with the instances of mental cruelty, the Court opined that to the illustrations given in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) certain other illustrations could be added. We think it seemly to reproduce the observations: “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.” 13. In Ramchander v. Ananta, (2015) 42 SCD 418, it was held: “The expression ‘’cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental.” 14. Going through the entire record, which is before us this is fit case where appeal requires to be allowed. 15. Appeal stands allowed. Impugned judgment of Trial Court is set aside. 16. The judgment and decree of Trial Court shall stand modified. The marriage solemnized between appellant and respondent is hereby dissolved on the ground of cruelty. 17. The appellant shall be free to claim permanent alimony by filing application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Court below. Till then as an interim maintenance respondent shall pay Rs. 5000/- per month to appellant and Rs. 3000/- per month for the daughter.