JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the pronouncement recorded by the learned District Judge, Shimla, on 07.06.2012 in H.M.A. Petition No. 23-S/3 of 2010, whereby, he dissolved the marital ties inter se the appellant herein with the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter called as the petitioner) was married to the appellant (hereinafter called as the respondent) on 02.05.2005, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at in village Karen (Sundernagar-Mandi). Thereafter, parties lived as husband and wife. The petitioner had been working in Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. He stood allotted government accommodation, Set No.5, Metropole annexe. At the time of her marriage, the respondent had been working as staff nurse in Fortis Hospital, Mohali. The petitioner had got the respondent employed on contract and she stood posted in Civil Hospital, Jogindernagar in January, 2006. In may, 2006, the petitioner had got the respondent transferred to Shimla and she had started working in IGMC, Shimla. The petitioner has averred that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. The conduct of the respondent from very beginning had been nagging, dominating and far from satisfactory. The petitioner had been tolerating cruelty meted out to him with a view to carry on his marriage. The respondent had been picking up quarrel with the petitioner and his parents over petty matters. The parents of the petitioner had been suffering from various ailments requiring time-to-time medical check up. Hence, the parents of the petitioner had been residing with him. The respondent had opposed the residing of her father-in-law and mother-in-law with her. At occasions, the respondent had manhandled the petitioner. When asked to improve her conduct, the respondent had threatened to commit suicide. The petitioner had been compelled to report against the respondent to the local police on 10.11.2006. The respondent had been getting salary of Rs.13,500/- per month. As against this, the petitioner had been in receipt of salary of Rs.12,737/- per month. The petitioner had been contributing to GPF, GIS and his carry home salary had been Rs.5000/- per month. The respondent had been snatching salary of the petitioner and had not been contributing in any way for maintenance and upkeep of the household. The respondent had given birth to one male issue on 6.2.2008. The petitioner had been contributing to GPF, GIS and his carry home salary had been Rs.5000/- per month. The respondent had been snatching salary of the petitioner and had not been contributing in any way for maintenance and upkeep of the household. The respondent had given birth to one male issue on 6.2.2008. It is averred that after some time of marriage, the respondent had developed intimacy with one Ajay Negi. It so happened that in the month of March, 2007, the petitioner had returned to his house earlier than his usual time and had found Sh. Ajay Negi present in his house. The petitioner had interrogated the respondent about the presence of a stranger with her. Instead of admitting her fault, the respondent had started quarrelling with the petitioner. In the month of April, 2007, the petitioner had left of his village, but could not board the bus and had returned to his house only to find Sh. Ajay Negi at his house at about 8.00 p.m. The respondent had not been able to give any satisfactory explanation of presence of stranger with her. On 8.4.2007, the petitioner's mother had visited him in connection with her medical treatment. The respondent had picked up a quarrel with her mother-in-law. The ailment of the petitioner's mother had got complicated and she required immediate medical aid. The petitioner had been compelled to take his mother to I.G.M.C. The respondent though employed in IGMC yet did not visit her mother-in-law and had started proclaiming her good health. On 3.9.2007, the respondent had picked up a quarreled with the petitioner. She had caused injury on the finger of the petitioner with blade. The respondent had reported crime under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC against the petitioner vide FIR No. 237/07, Police Station, Sadar. The petitioner had been arrested by the police on 4.9.2007 and had been released on bail on 5.9.2007. Parents of the petitioner had also been arrested in false case registered by the respondent. The petitioner avers that his marriage with the respondent had completely broken down. The respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty and, hence the petition for dissolution of marriage. 3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner herein before the learned District Judge, Shimla, stood contested by the respondent, by hers instituting a reply thereto, wherein, she controverted all the allegations constituted against her in the apposite petition. The respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty and, hence the petition for dissolution of marriage. 3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner herein before the learned District Judge, Shimla, stood contested by the respondent, by hers instituting a reply thereto, wherein, she controverted all the allegations constituted against her in the apposite petition. She has denied that she had ever treated the petitioner with cruelty. She has also denied that she was extremely violent in nature and has an errant behaviour. It is averred that the conduct of the respondent had not been nagging, dominating or in any way objectionable to the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to wriggle out of his marriage on false grounds. The respondent had given birth to one son out of her union with her husband on 6.2.2008. The petitioner had refused and neglected the maintenance of the respondent and her child. The respondent had been compelled to apply for maintenance for her son against the petitioner. The respondent had been treated with cruelty and she had rightly reported crime under Sections 498-A, 323 of the IPC against the petitioner tot he local police on 3.9.2007. The petitioner had been withdrawing from the society of the respondent without any rhyme and reason. He had been occasionally visiting his residence in Metropole annexe. The respondent had nothing to do with Ajay Negi. The petitioner was not entitled to dissolution of his marriage on the ground of cruelty. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has developed intimacy with one Sh. Ajay Negi, as alleged?OPP. 3. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned District Judge, the latter allowed the apposite petition. 6. In the Hindu Marriage Petition, the petitioner concerted, to establish (i) of his legally wedded wife encumbering him with cruelty, whereupon, he made a further endeavour to beget dissolution of his marital ties with her. The mental cruelty (ies) ascribed by the petitioner vis-a-vis his wife, is grooved in hers being indifferent vis-a-vis his parents also hers misbehaving with the petitioner's parents. The mental cruelty (ies) ascribed by the petitioner vis-a-vis his wife, is grooved in hers being indifferent vis-a-vis his parents also hers misbehaving with the petitioner's parents. He avers in his petition that upon his mother visiting Shimla, on 8.4.2007, for obtaining treatment at IGMC, Shimla, for alleviating her heart problem, his spouse quarreling besides assaulting her, sequeling befallment of a heart attack upon her, leading to hers being admitted at IGMC, Shimla. He avers that, one, Chiranji Lal Sharma, neighbour of the petitioner, had accompanied him, to IGMC, Shimla, whereat he admitted his mother. However, he avers that the respondent remained indifferent, to the hospitalization of his mother AND never visited her, at the aforesaid hospital. The petitioner avers in the petition, that, his spouse lodged a false report in Police Station, Sadar Shimla on 3.9.2007, embodying therein offences constituted under Sections 498-A, 323 of the IPC. Furthermore, the petitioner avers, of, his spouse subsequent to theirs contracting marriage, hence developing intimacy with one Ajay Negi, latter whereof, being, in the month of March, 2007, also in the month of April, 2007, hence noticed by him, to be in his homestead in the company of his spouse. He proceeds to aver that, upon, his detecting the aforesaid Ajay Negi, in the company of his spouse, at his homestead, thereupon, the aforesaid Ajay Negi, fleeing therefrom (ii) also on his taking exception(s) qua his presence in his homestead, also his confronting therewith, his spouse, begetting the sequel of his spouse quarreling besides physically manhandling him. The lodging of the FIR against the petitioner and his parents by the respondent/appellant herein, at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, constituting therein offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of the IPC, remains uncontroverted. Also Ex. PY-2, exhibit whereof, is a verdict pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (IV), Shimla, upon case No. 30-2 of 2011/07, unveils, of the learned trial Court pronouncing an order of acquittal upon the charges levelled against the petitioner and his parents. The aforesaid order has attained conclusivity. Also Ex. PY-2, exhibit whereof, is a verdict pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (IV), Shimla, upon case No. 30-2 of 2011/07, unveils, of the learned trial Court pronouncing an order of acquittal upon the charges levelled against the petitioner and his parents. The aforesaid order has attained conclusivity. The effect of a binding and conclusive verdict being pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shimla, whereby, he acquitted the petitioner and his parents, for, charges constituted under Section 498-A and 323 of the IPC, (iii) is, of thereupon, the respondent/appellant herein by levelling false allegations against the petitioner besides his parents, hence , entailing the petitioner's psyche with severe mental agony, consequence whereof, is of the appellant herein/respondent besetting grave mental cruelty upon the petitioner/respondent herein. 7. Furthermore, the averred unwanted besides undesirable visits, of, one Ajay Negi to the homestead, of the petitioner/respondent herein and his being thereat found in the company of the appellant herein/respondent, thereupon too, a severe mental torture standing encumbered, upon, the respondent herein, stand(s) testified by the petitioner/respondent herein. Jayoti Kumari Sharma, the appellant herein/respondent, during, the course of her cross-examination, (i) whereat she stood confronted, with the aforesaid visits of Ajay Negi, to the petitioner's homestead, (ii) also upon hers being suggested, of, hers holding intimacy with him, rather took to deny the aforesaid suggestions, (iii) yet with hers acquiescing, to a further suggestion put to her by the counsel for the respondent herein/petitioner, of, the latter confronting her qua the nature of hers holding a relationship with him also hers acquiescing to a suggestion put to her, of his protesting against his visiting her, at his homestead, rather fosters an inference of (iv) any prior thereto denial, of, Jayoti Kumari Sharma of hers being unacquainted with Ajay Negi being ridden with falsity; (v) thereupon, hers stealthily camouflaging the nature of the relationship, she held with one Ajay Negi; (vi) corollary whereof, is, of her husband for want of a tangible sound explication being purveyed by his spouse, in respect of her relationship with one Ajay Negi, his being left with a sufficient room to suspect the nature of her relationship with Ajay Negi, (vi) thereupon, his mind being beset with mental turmoil also with concomitant cruelty. 8. 8. Be that as it may, the aforesaid inferences, do, with aplomb constrain this Court, of Sashi Pal, husband of Jayoti Kumari Sharma, by adducing cogent evidence, his efficaciously discharging the onus cast upon him qua the issue appertaining, to his spouse encumbering him with mental cruelty. It is averred in the petition, of, the marital estrangement inter se him and his spouse, commencing in the month of September, 2007, whereafter, theirs living separately, since then upto now; (i) whereupon, he contends that their prolonged separation (ii) or their marital estrangement, (iii) begetting the inference of their marital ties being irretrievably broken down, thereupon, its dissolution, being warranted, as aptly done by the learned District Judge, Shimla. The appositely proven legal para meters, for making apt conclusion(s) with respect, to irretrievable break down of marriage and refusal(s) to severe it, by an apposite decree being rendered, aggravating the agonies of the martial parties, are, encapsulated in a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in a caste titled as Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh, (2007)4 SCC 511 , the relevant paragraph No.101 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour 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) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (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. (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 behaviour 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) 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. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (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 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. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (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. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (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.” (pp.546-547) 9. Jayoti Sharma, the legally wedded spouse, of Shashi Pal Sharma, is averred in the apposite petition, to, on 20.03.2010, forcibly occupying the official quarters allotted, to her husband. In respect thereto, her husband rendered, a testification. (i) The testification, in respect thereto, rendered by one Shashi Pal , would not be sufficient, for its being construable to carry any probative worth, for, clinching affirmative findings qua the aforesaid facet, (ii) especially with Jayoti Sharma, his spouse, during, the course of hers being subjected to cross-examination by her husband's counsel, denying the apt suggestion, of, hers occupying the official quarters allotted to her husband, (iii) also hence would render frail the aforesaid rendered testification of her husband. However, when she, in her testification, embodied in her examination-in-chief, (iv) makes a disclosure, of, hers staying at the official quarters allotted to her husband, rather does foster an inference of her husband proving the factum of hers staying thereat besides his also proving of his staying elsewhere, whereupon, the immediately prior thereto drawn inference hence wane(s). However, even if, Jayoti Sharma is staying at the official quarters allotted to her husband, it would not ipso facto, render a firm conclusion, of her husband, not, thereat staying along with her. Nonetheless, with the respondent, in her, reply to the apposite petition, contending of her husband withdrawing himself, from her society and his only paying occasional visits to her at the quarters allotted to him at Metropole, Shimla, (v) rather firmly rests, a clinching conclusion, of Jayoti Sharma acquiescing to the factum of prolonged martial estrangement(s) inter se her vis-a-vis her husband commencing since 3.09.2007 AND lasting upto now. The inordinate prolonged bittered estrangement inter se the parties at contest, does, in consonance with the afore extracted apt portion of the verdict(s), recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, beget an inference, of, their marital ties being irretrievably broken down, severance whereof being hence an utmost legal necessity. Furthermore, with the averments borne, in the petition, of the petitioner's spouse being indifferent vis-a-vis his parents also hers not carrying any shred of emotion, whereas, for its survival, an institution of marriage is enjoined to be anvilled upon martial affection(s) AND good will, (vi) contrarily, with emotions inter se them being evidently demolished, predominantly apparent, from, upon the petitioner's mother suffering a heart attack on 8.4.2007, whereupon, she stood admitted at IGMC, Shimla, whereto she was carried by the petitioner and by one Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, whereat the petitioner's spouse evidently omitted to visit her, factum whereof is testified by the petitioner besides is testified by Chiranji Lal Sharma. (vii) Moreover, with testifications qua the aforesaid facet, rendered conjointly by Shashi Pal Sharma and by one Chiranji Lal Sharma, remaining unerodded of their probative vigour, despite, theirs standing subjected to an ordeal of rigorous cross-examination, by the counsel for the appellant herein, begets an inference of the (viii) aforesaid conclusion(s), being in tandem with the verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh's case (supra),(ix) also when the aforesaid Shashi Pal led cogent evidence in proof, of his marital ties with his legally wedded spouse, being emotionally starved besides nowat being emotionally barren, thereupon, also all the aforesaid proven facts, fall squarely in consonance with the apposite legal parameters, borne in Smar Ghosh's case (supra), for thereupon constraining this Court, to annul their marital tie(s), it being irretrievably broken down. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing, for the appellant herein, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the averment borne in paragraph 3, of the apposite petition, embodying the fact, of, both martial partners, cohabiting as husband and wife, at Shimla, also a male issue being born out of their wedlock on 6th February, 2008, (i) whereupon, he contends, of the averments borne in paragraph 10 of the petition, of, since 3.9.2007, upto now both the marital partners living apart, being ipso facto rendered spurious. The mere factum, of a male child being born to the marital partners, on, 6th February, 2008, would not constrain, this Court to accept the aforesaid submission, as the timing of the birth of male child (ii) is beyond the time of theirs permanently alienating themselves from their respective marital status(es), (iii) rather upon 9 months being counted in reverse therefrom, is, the apt recoknable time for imputing veracity, to the averment existing in the petition, of since September 2007, both the married partners living apart. Upon counting in reverse 9 months from 6.2.2008, thereupon, the spouse of one Shashi Pal Sharma, hence is to be concluded to conceive some few months prior to September, 2007. Thereupon, this Court is enabled to firmly conclude, that, despite a male child being born subsequent thereto, to the spouse of Shashi Pal Sharma, his birth thereat, not negating the aforesaid inference, of, his spouse Jayoti Shama alienating herself from his company since the month of September, 2007 and the alienation(s) continuing upto now. 11. This Court with vigour besides with utmost fortified vigour, is coaxed to conclude that the relevant parameters, encapsulated, in the aforesaid extracted paragraphs of the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samar Ghosh's case (supra), standing invincibly satiated, by Shashi Pal Sharma, thereupon, the further concomitant sequel is of this Court being further enabled to conclude, of the marital ties inter se the parties at contest, being irretrievably broken down, also to conclude of annulment of their marital status(es) being an utmost necessity. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of the relevant evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.