JUDGEMENT : 1. The appellant/husband had presented Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) on the file of the Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court – IV, Bangalore by order dated 06.07.2012 passed in M.C.No.3348/2009. He had suffered judgment and decree. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Appellant and respondent’s marriage was solemnized on 14.05.2008 at Nelamangala, Bengaluru. After about 15 days from the date of marriage, on account of ‘Ashadamasa’, respondent went to her parents house. After completion of ‘áshadamasa’, respondent did not turn out. Consequently, appellant and his parents asked the respondent to return to matrimonial home. In this background, elders and well wishers of both the family members conveyed panchayat, advised the respondent for which respondent heeded to their advise and went back to matrimonial home. Respondent was demanding appellant to take her out every week end which was responded by the appellant in taking her to various places in and around Bengaluru like Nandi Hills, Mysuru, Bannerghata, Devarayana Durga and various temples with a view to impress and to adjust to the appellant and matrimonial home. Respondent’s father has taken undue advantage of the appellant’s nature that he is adjustable to any situation. Taking undue advantage of the same, respondent’s father was visiting appellant’s house frequently while poisoning the mind of the respondent. Thus, respondent was demanding unreasonable issues like leaving his parents and to make a separate house, so that they could enjoy life. When the appellant refused to such demands, respondent’s father threatened the petitioner. In this background, respondent became very adamant so also very short-tempered. She was frequently visiting her parents house without knowledge of the appellant so also she was intimating the appellant over phone after going to her parents house. When it was questioned by the appellant, she was abusing in filthy language in front of the family members, friends and relatives. Respondent got Government job on 15.07.2008 as a High school teacher. Thus, she was economically independent and she was not bothered about the appellant and his parents or in the house hold affairs. That apart, appellant was only a diploma holder whereas respondent was double graduate and she became Government employee. Once again, respondent settled at her parents house in the guise of “Gowri festival’ and stayed back for about 2 weeks. That apart, appellant was only a diploma holder whereas respondent was double graduate and she became Government employee. Once again, respondent settled at her parents house in the guise of “Gowri festival’ and stayed back for about 2 weeks. When it was questioned by the appellant, she stated that she is not interested to come to the matrimonial home and she abused that she is not servant of the appellant and she could not look after parents of the appellant. Thus, there was strained relationship among the appellant and respondent’s family. Once again, panchayat was held on 10.08.2008 which was materialized. Thereafter, on 15.10.2008 abruptly respondent took away a big suitcase, when it was questioned it was told by her that certain old books were being taken to her parents house and she would be back after some time as she had certain work in the University and so also getting salary etc. Thereafter appellant noticed that respondent had taken her belongings including clothes and gold ornaments. Appellant tried to contact her and her mobile was switched off. In fact, he had contacted on number of occasions, there was no response. Appellant, approached her parents to send her to matrimonial home for which her parents abused the appellant in filthy language. It was also alleged that during the stay of the respondent, she has even deprived of physical contact with the appellant. These are all the issues by which appellant has sustained mental agony and cruelty at the hands of the respondent. Respondent had denied all these allegations including allegation stated in the notice. Appellant was compelled to file the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. 3. Family Court has framed following points for consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained cruelty in the hands of respondent? (2) Whether respondent proves that without any valid reason, petitioner has withdrawn from the society of her? (3) What Order? 4. The Family Court considered the evidence of PW1 – appellant and PW2 – Premalatha, Ex.P.1 – marriage invitation card and on behalf respondent – RW1 – wife of appellant. No document is produced on her behalf. Family Court proceeded to consider the allegations and counter allegations made by the appellant and respondent. (3) What Order? 4. The Family Court considered the evidence of PW1 – appellant and PW2 – Premalatha, Ex.P.1 – marriage invitation card and on behalf respondent – RW1 – wife of appellant. No document is produced on her behalf. Family Court proceeded to consider the allegations and counter allegations made by the appellant and respondent. In terms of various decisions quoted in para.14 and 15 of the Judgment, Family Court has come to the conclusion that appellant had not made out a case of cruelty so as to grant relief under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act and rejected the petition. During trial, respondent has made allegations against the appellant that mother of the appellant was demanding car or Rs.5.00 lakhs in cash. At the outset, contention of the appellant and respondent are that they are blaming each other’s parents like respondent blaming appellant’s mother and appellant blaming respondent’s father. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, Family Court has come to the conclusion that there is no misunderstanding among appellant and respondent. Accordingly, petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act is rejected while allowing the counter claim of the respondent/wife. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that having regard to the fact that respondent left matrimonial home on 2 occasions on the pretext that she would be going to her parents house on occasion of ‘ashadamasa’ and ‘Gowri Festival’, thereafter, she did not turn out, whereby appellant was compelled to convey panchayat for her return to matrimonial home. Even though it was materialized at the same time, such incidents was repeatedly happening which proves that respondent has deserted appellant. She had inferior complexity with reference to she being a double graduate and appellant a diploma holder. She is a Government employee. In this background, appellant was being ill treated so also his parents as is evident from the dates and events. Moreover, she became short tempered and was very adamant in insisting to have a separate house and not to stay with the appellant’s parents. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that appellant was poisoned by his mother. She was very much possessive of the appellant. Appellant was acting on the behest of his mother while harassing the respondent. Mother of the appellant was prohibiting respondent to prosecute higher studies. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that appellant was poisoned by his mother. She was very much possessive of the appellant. Appellant was acting on the behest of his mother while harassing the respondent. Mother of the appellant was prohibiting respondent to prosecute higher studies. In fact, appellant’s mother was not happy that respondent had a Government job with higher qualification etc. In other words, mother of the appellant was ill treating respondent. She demanded a car or Rs.5.00 lakh cash and on 12.10.2008 while stipulating within 3 days, she has to fulfill the demand of appellant’s mother otherwise, respondent would be thrown out of the matrimonial home. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, respondent’s counsel submitted that there is no error committed by the Family Court in rejecting the appellant’s petition for divorce. Hence, the present appeal is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. From the perusal of the judgment of the Family Court it is evident that on behalf of the appellant he has examined himself on his own behalf as PW1 and PW 2 – Premalatha further, relying on Ex.P.1 – marriage invitation card. Whereas on behalf of the respondent – RW1 – P.Rashmi wife of the appellant is examined but no document has been furnished. Having regard to the evidence of PW1, pW2 and RW1, it is only allegations and counter allegations that are made from the date of marriage till filing of the petition. None of the parties have produced any material in respect of allegations and counter allegations. In other words, allegations are self serving statement and not supported by any corroborative evidence. Neither of the parties have adduced evidence to corroborate allegations. In fact, allegations on behalf of both the appellant and respondent is with reference to each one’s in-laws like appellant blaming respondent’s father read with respondent’s attitude. At the same time, respondent was blaming appellant’s mother. Nowhere respondent has blamed appellant except to the extent that he was listening to his mother’s words. No-doubt it is not a case for divorce as held by the Family Court at the same time one has to examine the admitted fact that from 15.10.2008 till date both the appellant and respondent have been residing separately. Therefore, one has to draw inference that marriage has broken down irretrievably. 9. No-doubt it is not a case for divorce as held by the Family Court at the same time one has to examine the admitted fact that from 15.10.2008 till date both the appellant and respondent have been residing separately. Therefore, one has to draw inference that marriage has broken down irretrievably. 9. Parties were present when the matter was taken up for arguments. We have made every effort asking the parties to settle among themselves and in not pursuing the divorce petition. No-doubt, respondent - wife of the appellant was willing to join her husband at his house. However, appellant/husband submitted that they are living separately from 15.10.2008. It is highly improbable to rejoin her and live together at this distance of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GURUBUX SINGH vs HARMINDER KAUR reported in 2010(14) SCC 301 in para 12 laid down certain principles as to under what circumstances, cruelty could be taken into consideration for the purpose of divorce, at para.12 it is held as under: 12. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act laid down certain guidelines. The analysis and ultimate conclusion are relevant which reads as under:- 98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of "mental cruelty" within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. 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 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. 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. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 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. (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. 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 sterilisation 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. 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. 10. On perusal of sub-para (xiv), cruelty could be determined if there is separation among couples for longer period. In this case, undisputably appellant and respondent are living separately from 15.10.2008. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 10. On perusal of sub-para (xiv), cruelty could be determined if there is separation among couples for longer period. In this case, undisputably appellant and respondent are living separately from 15.10.2008. It is almost more than a decade. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if couples are living separately for longer duration, in that event one has to draw inference that marriage has broken down irretrievably. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, Family Court has erred in not appreciating that appellant and respondent are living separately for more than decade and so also the version of the appellant when a question was posed for him to rejoin his wife, respondent in the open Court has expressed that it is highly improbable to join her as they are living separately since a decade. 12. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER Petition filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act is hereby allowed. the judgment and decree of the Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court – IV, Bengaluru in M.C.No.3348/2009 dated 06.07.2012 is set-aside. Marriage solemnized on 14.05.2008 between the appellant and respondent held at Nelamangala, Bengaluru is dissolved. Appellant is hereby directed to pay necessary permanent alimony to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If any dispute arises in respect of settlement of permanent alimony, in that event, appellant or respondent are hereby directed to revive the appeal only to the extent of permanent alimony.