JUDGMENT A.M. Dhavale, J. - All these appeals filed by a husband against his wife in three matrimonial proceedings involve common questions of law and facts. These are commonly heard and decided by the first appellate Court by common judgment. These are commonly argued before me and therefore I am disposing them of by this common judgment. 2. The facts relevant for deciding these appeals may be stated as follows: The appellant - Pravin is serving at Mukti, Tq. & Dist. Dhule as a teacher of medium school. His father was Assistant Commissioner in Tribal Development Department, Nashik and his mother was a Primary Teacher at Dhule. On 22.01.2005, Pravin married to the respondent - Surekha and thereafter they started cohabiting at Dhule. Surekha''s maternal house is at a distance of about 10 minutes walk from her matrimonial house. Surekha is M.A. B.Ed. The parties cohabited together from 22.01.2005 to 11.04.2006 and thereafter they separated, when Surekha was in 7th month of pregnancy. Out of the wedlock, Surekha gave birth to a daughter named Purva (Respondent No.2) on 03.07.2006. On 12.05.2005, Surekha suffered termination of pregnancy. On 11.09.2006, Pravin issued notice demanding divorce. Surekha sent reply dated 21.09.2006 and offered to cohabit with Pravin. These facts are not in dispute. 3. On 05.10.2006, Pravin filed HMP No. 218/06 in the court of Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Dhule for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As per the petition, Pravin and his parents were serving and Surekha used to be alone in the house. She was having responsibility to look after the house and show proper respect to her matrimonial relatives but she used to go to her maternal house 3 to 4 times in a week and whenever Pravin and his parents used to come home, they used to see their house locked. They were required to make search for Surekha or to wait for her on the platform outside the house. Whenever Surekha was accosted about her behavior, she used to raise hue and cry by coming out of the house. Whenever Pravin or his mother used to come to house early, they used to find Surekha in the company of her friends, both male and female. She was not taking cognizance of their arrival and used to continue to enjoy the company of her friends. Whenever Pravin or his mother used to come to house early, they used to find Surekha in the company of her friends, both male and female. She was not taking cognizance of their arrival and used to continue to enjoy the company of her friends. Pravin and his relatives in order to avoid defamation of the family, used to keep quiet. Whenever Surekha was accosted about the same, she used to make counter allegations and used to threaten them that she would commit suicide by immolation and would send all of them in jail. She used to raise shouts as if she was being assaulted. Her behaviour was causing mental cruelty to Pravin and his mother. Whenever Pravin objected to her frequent visits to her maternal house, she used to cut off talks with him and his relatives. Pravin alleged that, on 12.05.2012, she consumed tablets and without intimation to him and his parents underwent medical termination of pregnancy. On 11.04.2006, in the 7th month of pregnancy of Surekha, Pravin''s mother performed religious function to welcome the expected child and thereafter Surekha on her own went to her maternal house and on 03.07.2006, she gave birth to a female child. This news was not communicated to Pravin and his parents. In order to take revenge and cause cruelty, she filed FIR under section 498A IPC against Pravin and family members with the SP office, Dhule. Pravin and his parents were called at S.P. Office and Surekha by her behavior created terror in their minds at the S.P. Office. Considering the facts, Pravin came to the conclusion that, divorce was the only alternative and therefore he issued notice dated 11.09.2006. Surekha sent a false reply and hence the Divorce Petition came to be filed. 4. (Exh. 11), Surekha admitted the relationship and the period of cohabitation. She claimed that, her father spent Rs. 2,50,000/- for her marriage and her husband extorted dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father. Her father had given 79 gms. gold in marriage. When she started cohabiting with Pravin, his sister and brother were also residing with him. He belongs to a rich and educated family. She was treated well for around eight days. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started harassing her with complaints that they did not receive proper respect and proper presents at the time of marriage. They made demands of Rs. He belongs to a rich and educated family. She was treated well for around eight days. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started harassing her with complaints that they did not receive proper respect and proper presents at the time of marriage. They made demands of Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a bike and also demanded gold of five tolas. They used to abuse her and assault her and were not providing her food and were keeping her hungry. She tried to persuade her husband and in-laws so that they should treat her well and should not demand dowry from her poor father. But, the ill-treatment continued. Pravin was having love affairs with several girls and he used to receive phone calls from his fiancie at night time and she had heard him making romantic talks on the phone. Pravin''s mother and sister were abusing her in filthy language and used to call her ''Chhinal and Rand''. Surekha reported these facts to her father-inlaw. He asked her to adjust herself in their culture or grant divorce. Surekha had sincere desire to cohabit with her husband and therefore she bore all the torture. Due to mental torture and tension, she underwent termination of pregnancy. In spite of this knowledge, Pravin made false allegations in his notice. One month thereafter, when Suekha returned to her matrimonial house, she was again subjected to cruelty and on 11.04.2006, she was assaulted and her ornaments were robbed off and she was driven out with a threat that if she would beget a daughter, she would not be accepted. On the next day, when she came back to collect her notes and ornaments, Pravin and his relatives abused her, quarreled with her and drove her out. When she narrated these facts to her father, she was persuaded to adjust herself. On 03.07.2006, when she begot a baby girl, Pravin and his family members did not come to see the daughter. Whenever, Surekha and her relatives tried to contact them on phone, they found their phones switched off. When her father had taken her along with child to her matrimonial house, they were driven out 4-5 times. After receiving the notice, she had gone to resume cohabitation but, she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- or grant divorce and she was driven out. Hence, the petitions be dismissed. 5. When her father had taken her along with child to her matrimonial house, they were driven out 4-5 times. After receiving the notice, she had gone to resume cohabitation but, she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- or grant divorce and she was driven out. Hence, the petitions be dismissed. 5. With similar pleadings, on 05.12.2006, Surekha filed HMP No. 237/2006 for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The reply of Pravin is in tune with his petition for divorce. The only difference is that, he claimed that the case filed against him was under section 394, 323, 504, 506/34 IPC. 6. Surekha also filed Spl. Civil Suit No. 45/2008 for maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- for herself and Rs. 4,000/- for her daughter. She claimed that, her husband was drawing salary of Rs. 24,960/-. Besides, her father-in-law and mother-in-law were getting pension of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and her brother-in-law was also getting handsome salary. She was not having any source of income. Pravin drove her out, neglected, and refused to maintain her and her daughter. He was having a huge bungalow let out on rent of Rs. 6,500/-. Pravin''s family was getting income of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Pravin in the written statement denied various allegations. He claimed that, in the divorce proceedings, there was application for interim maintenance and maintenance of Rs. 2,000/-was granted. He also claimed that, his wife has filed false case against him and his parents under section 394 of IPC. He was in police custody for 2 days and magisterial custody for 5 days. He was terminated from service and was undergoing distressed life. His parents were required to get voluntary retirement. Surekha was M.A. B.Ed. and was taking tuition class to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, no maintenance should be granted. 7. The parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge Sr. Division was pleased to grant decree of divorce. He rejected the petition for restitution and he granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 3000/- to Surekha and Rs. 2,000/- for Purva (daughter). Aggrieved by the decree of maintenance, Pravin filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 92/2010 whereas; Surekha filed RCA No. 93/2010 against decree of divorce, Reg. Civil Appeal No. 97/2010 against decree of refusal to grant restitution and RCA No. 95/2010 for enhancement of maintenance. 8. 3000/- to Surekha and Rs. 2,000/- for Purva (daughter). Aggrieved by the decree of maintenance, Pravin filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 92/2010 whereas; Surekha filed RCA No. 93/2010 against decree of divorce, Reg. Civil Appeal No. 97/2010 against decree of refusal to grant restitution and RCA No. 95/2010 for enhancement of maintenance. 8. These four appeals were heard jointly by learned Principal District Judge, Dhule and by a common judgment, he reversed the decree of divorce and HMP No. 218/2006 was dismissed. The decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted and the maintenance awarded was increased to Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and Rs. 4,000/- p.m. In short, the appeals filed by wife were allowed and the appeal filed by the husband was dismissed. Aggrieved by these judgments, the husband has filed these three appeals. Second Appeal No. 147/2015 is in divorce proceedings, Second Appeal No. 12/2015 is in proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and Second Appeal No. 279 of 2015 is in maintenance proceedings. 9. Shri. V. B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant argued that, the trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and has delivered well reasoned judgments. The learned appellate Court has totally overlooked the judgments and reversed the findings without taking into consideration the findings and reasonings given by the learned trial Judge. He argued that, there was ample evidence on record to show that Surekha was subjected to cruelty. He relied upon the allegations made by Surekha in the written statement about the love affairs of her husband Pravin in respect of which no evidence was led and the allegations were thus false. He also submitted that, Surekha had filed false cases against him and his parents and caused their arrest and therefore Pravin lost his job and though he was reinstated, he sustained humiliation in the society. Considering the conduct of Surekha, it was impossible for him to cohabit with her. She had filed Domestic Violence proceedings against him and his relatives which came to be dismissed. She filed FIR under section 498A IPC but the courts granted him anticipatory bail. Thereafter, her mother filed false FIR of robbery and caused his arrest. The arrest resulted into loss of his job. When Surekha begot a daughter, she did not inform this fact to him and his relatives. He also argued that, Surekha was admittedly serving and was having source of income. Thereafter, her mother filed false FIR of robbery and caused his arrest. The arrest resulted into loss of his job. When Surekha begot a daughter, she did not inform this fact to him and his relatives. He also argued that, Surekha was admittedly serving and was having source of income. These facts were not considered while enhancing the maintenance allowance. 10. Per contra, learned advocate Shri. P. S. Paranjape supported the judgment of the appellate Court. He pointed out that, Pravin and his relatives used to harass Surekha during the cohabitation period. He made false allegations about termination of pregnancy of Surekha when it was natural abortion. He did not make any efforts for resuming cohabitation but directly issued notice for divorce. In that notice, he suspected her fidelity by stating that she was residing at her maternal house for two months and she was pregnant for a period of 1 1 /2 month. He argued that, allegations of mental cruelty made by Pravin are withcriminalout any substance. If Surekha was repeatedly going to maternal house situated at a 10 minutes walk, it cannot be a matter of complaint. Besides, if some friends come to her or she goes out and the house is found locked when Pravin or his parents came home, it cannot be called as an act of cruelty. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. Pravin has not shown any love and affection to his daughter. Pravin is from affluent family and the maintenance granted is in fact on lower side. Now his salary has been increased to Rs. 55,000/- and Surekha would be filing application for enhancement. He argued that, there are no pleadings regarding the complaint filed under section 394 IPC. There was no case under section 498-A IPC filed. Surekha had only approached the SP office for settlement. With respect to the allegations in the written statement, he submitted that, those are not allegations of illicit relationship but only about love affair and in the same breath, she had shown readiness to resume cohabitation and forget the past. Even today, she has desire to resume cohabitation and therefore no interference is warranted in the judgments passed by the first appellate Court. 11. Mr. Even today, she has desire to resume cohabitation and therefore no interference is warranted in the judgments passed by the first appellate Court. 11. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 1675 wherein the apex court in the light of the allegations in the written statement and 10 years separation, granted decree of divorce. 12. Mr. Paranjape, learned counsel for the respondents relied on Sudipto Banerjee vs. Renuka reported in AIR 2016 (Cal.) 289 (Para 17). Surendra Pal v Bala reported in 2016(4) Allahabad Law Journal 594 (Para 10), Vishnu Sharma vs. Manju Sharma (2009) 2 RCR (Civil) 506 : Supreme Court Judgment dated 27.02.2009). In these cases, it has been laid down that, there cannot be decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. He, therefore, submitted that all the appeals be dismissed. 13. On the basis of arguments, facts and issues as referred to above, the substantial questions of law framed by me with findings thereon as as follows : (i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in not following the settled principles of law with regard to cruelty on the basis of a complaint lodged and allegations of love affairs made while reversing the decree of divorce ? ..In the affirmative (ii) Whether the learned Appellate Court erred in reversing the rejection of decree of restitution of conjugal rights by ignoring the material facts or by not following the settled principles of law? ..In the affirmative (iii) Whether the learned Appellate Court erred in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- in the light of the facts discussed regarding income of both the parties and in the light of settled principles of law? .. In the negative Second Appeal Nos.147 of 2015, 12 of 2015 are allowed and Second Appeal No.279 of 2015 is dismissed. Decree of divorce is restored and decree of rejection of restitution of conjugal rights is also restored. Substantial question no.1 with respect to decree of divorce: (A) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage : Neither there are pleadings nor evidence to claim divorce on the point of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Both the Courts have not considered this point It is admitted fact that since April 2006, the parties are residing separately, there were several proceedings filed by the husband and wife against each other. Both the Courts have not considered this point It is admitted fact that since April 2006, the parties are residing separately, there were several proceedings filed by the husband and wife against each other. It appears that there are no chances that the parties will resume cohabitation. (B) Learned Advocate Mr V.B. Patil has relied on Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006 AIR SC 1675 for the purpose of mental cruelty but the Apex Court also considered ground of irretrievable break down of marriage. 14. Learned Advocate Mr Prakash Paranjape has relied on (a) Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee, AIR 2017 (SC) 5092 to submit that the Apex Court has granted decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under article 142 of the Constitution which power is not vested with this Court. Vishnu vs. Manju Sharma - Order of Apex Court dated 27.2.2009 (Justice Markandey Katju and Justice V.S.Sirpurkar) wherein it is observed : " On a bare reading of Section 13 of the Act, reproduced above, it is crystal clear that no such ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce. This Court cannot add such a ground to section 13 of the Act as that would be amending the Act, which is function of the legislation". In the light of these facts, I hold that there cannot be decree of divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown and in Navin Kohli''s case, the Apex Court has considered the said ground under Article 142 of the Constitution. This Court has no such powers and therefore, no such ground can be considered. The decree on the ground of mental cruelty is claimed on two grounds : (1) Filing of criminal cases by Surekha under Section 498-A IPC and by her mother under Section 394A IPC in which Surekha was a witness. (2) The allegations made by Surekha in the notice and in pleadings and facts alleging that Pravin was having love affairs with several girls and he used to talk them at odd hours. 15. Before considering the reversal of findings by the First Appellate Court of trial court, it is relevant to consider what is the settled law on the point of mental cruelty particularly in reference to the above 2 grounds. Filing of criminal cases amounts to cruelty 16. 15. Before considering the reversal of findings by the First Appellate Court of trial court, it is relevant to consider what is the settled law on the point of mental cruelty particularly in reference to the above 2 grounds. Filing of criminal cases amounts to cruelty 16. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. 834 (S.C.) , the Apex Court laid down the following law on the point 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. (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. (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." "24. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. (SC) 10 : (2013) 5 SCC 226 , paragraph 16, the Apex Court held thus : Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty." "24. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. (SC) 10 : (2013) 5 SCC 226 , paragraph 16, the Apex Court held thus : Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or new 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" (emphasis added). 25. In the case of Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi (2010) 4 SCC 476 , in paragraphs 19 and 20 the Apex Court held thus : "19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of bahaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime, cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may taken form of violence, some time it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its category can never be closed. Whether husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon vs. Sheldon held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed" (emphasis added). 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Nagesh Dhanapp Chikanti vs. Sau. Manisha Nagesh Chikanti decided on 6th May, 2010 in fCa No. 158 of 2010. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Nagesh Dhanapp Chikanti vs. Sau. Manisha Nagesh Chikanti decided on 6th May, 2010 in fCa No. 158 of 2010. In paragraph 9, the Division Bench held thus : "9. The appellant has categorically deposed in examination-inchief before the Family Court that by filing of false complaint for alleged commission of offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code the respondent has falsely prosecuted the appellant and his family members. The cross-examination of the appellant indicate that the fact of acquittal of the appellant and his family members was never disputed and as such the Family Court ought to have proceeded to accept the contention of the appellant that false criminal cases were filed against the appellant and his family members with a view to cause utmost embarrassment, humiliation and sufferings. Filing of false criminal cases against the appellant and his family members would very much constitute mental cruelty". 18. In Mangesh Balkrushna Bhoir vs. Leena Mangesh Bhoir reported in 2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 252 , the wife had filed criminal case against her husband and in-laws under section 498A IPC. All of them were acquitted. It was observed in para 41 as follows: 41. The judgments referred to aforesaid clearly indicate that if the complaint filed by the wife against the husband under section 498-A of IPC and other related provisions was dismissed on merits and the husband and his family members are acquitted, it was clear that the complaint filed by the wife against the husband was a false complaint. In my opinion, filing of such complaint itself which create mental trauma on the husband and the complaint which was seriously prosecuted by the wife by leading evidence of several persons and bringing the said complaint to its logical conclusion which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the husband and his family members clearly amounted to the cruelty committed by the wife upon the husband. 19. In case of K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunitha, 2015(2) ALL.M.R. 435 (SC), respondent had filed criminal case under section 498A and 307 IPC against the appellant and several members of his family. It was found to be false. It was held that, even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty. The criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. The decree of dissolution was confirmed. It was found to be false. It was held that, even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty. The criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. The decree of dissolution was confirmed. 20. Reliance is placed on M. vs. M., 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 825 (Oka and A.S. Gupta, JJ), in which it is held that "filing repeated complaints and cases in the court against the spouse, in fact, amount of cruelty against the spouse. Allegations of illicit relations and love affairs. 21. Reliance was placed on Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, AIR 2003 SC 2462 . It has been held that such baseless allegations constitute cruelty. In V.R. Bhate vs. Neela V. Bhate, AIR 2003 SCW 2530 , the Supreme Court held as under : "7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indeed familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by the Court. On going through the relevant portion of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. On going through the relevant portion of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible." The wife has also made allegations of love affairs of her husband in her notice as well as in the written statement. She led no evidence to substantiate these allegations. 22. Reliance was placed on Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476 wherein it is observed : "In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behavior which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, some time it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty." In Harsha Indukar Bhojani vs. Indukumar Ratilal Bhojani 2004 (3) ALL M.R. 188 , it is held that : 15 The Supreme Court in Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, report in AIR 2002 SCW 2886 observed that :- Cruelty for the per se of Section 13 (1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the letter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. 23. In Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 1675 , some proceedings were initiated by the husband against wife wherein allegations of extramarital affairs and immoral living were levelled against each other. The petition was decreed and the decree was set aside by the High Court. The Apex Court granted decree of divorce. 24. It is also in the evidence that, Surekha had filed proceedings under Domestic Violence Act wherein several allegations were made. Those allegations were not proved and her application being Cri. M.A. No. 379 of 2008 was dismissed by the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule on 19.12.2008. The appeal bearing Cri. M.A. No. 06/09 preferred by Surekha was also dismissed. 25. It was argued that allegations made against husband were regarding love affairs of Pravin and not of illicit relations. It was argued that in the same proceedings, wife Surekha has shown willingness to co-habit. 26. Reliance was placed on Gurubax Singh vs. Harminder Kaur - Apex Court Judgment dated 8.8.2010 (P. Sathasivam and B.S.Chauhan, JJ). In para 12, it was held as follows : ''12. ...Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterized as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear and married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Substantial unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear and married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Substantial unjustifiable and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. Both the appellant and respondent being highly qualified persons, the appellant being Principal in ITI college, the respondent working as a Librarian in a Government Institute, an isolated friction on some occasion like festival of Lohri even in the presence of others cannot be a valid ground for dissolving the marriage'' 27. Reliance was placed on Malathi vs. Ravi, 2014 (7) SCC 640 . In which It was claimed that the party guilty of criminal offence cannot claim benefit thereof to claim divorce only the party suffering the mental cruelty can file divorce proceedings. In this regard, Advocate Paranjape pointed out that the husband has also made allegations in his notice that the child conceived was not his child. 28. Thus, it is settled law that filing of baseless criminal cases against the husband and in-laws is an act of cruelty. In the present case, because of filing of criminal cases, Pravin lost his job and though he was reinstated, he suffered humiliation. He was also arrested and was in Police custody and Magistrate custody. For sometimes, his parents were also in custody. As per the settled law referred herein above, the act of Surekha in filing complaint under section 498-A and supporting her mother in complaint under section 394 IPC are serious acts of mental cruelty. The learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated this fact in the light of settled law. The First Appellate Court lightly brushed aside these facts against the settled principles of law only on the ground that notice under section 350 Cr.PC was not issued. As far as allegations of obtaining forcible signature are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to show that, there is a custom of getting divorce by mutual consent executed on a stamp paper outside the court. Ld. Advocate Mr V. B. Patil also rightly argued that, Pravin had already filed a Divorce Petition in the court. If he wanted to obtain divorce by mutual agreement outside the court as per the custom, he would not have filed Divorce Petition in the court. Ld. Advocate Mr V. B. Patil also rightly argued that, Pravin had already filed a Divorce Petition in the court. If he wanted to obtain divorce by mutual agreement outside the court as per the custom, he would not have filed Divorce Petition in the court. These allegations made by Surekha and her mother are not substantiated and the ld. trial Judge rightly observed that, it amounted to cruelty. The reversal of these findings by the Appellate Court is perverse and not sustainable. 29. The petitioner-Pravin has relied on the allegations made by Surekha in her written statement against him that he was having love affairs with some girls and he used to talk to them at odd hours in the night and she had listened him talking on mobile. At the time of evidence, Surekha has given up this case and led no evidence. Making of these allegations were held by trial Court to be an act of cruelty. In this regard, learned trial Court had relied on the judgment in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 1675 and Harsha Bhojani vs. Indrakumar reported in 2004 (30) B.C.J. 496 . The first Appellate Court if wanted to come to a different conclusion, should have given sound reasons and should have shown how these acts would not amount to cruelty and how the findings of the first Appellate Court could not be upheld. He lightly upset the findings of the trial Court holding that these allegations were not sufficient to cause mental cruelty. Ld. First appellate Court did not consider the two judgments cited by the trial Court. 30. Besides, in the light of above case law, particularly the ratio laid down in Ravi Kumar vs. Julmi Devi, Surekha has shown complete loss of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses by making such serious allegations of love affairs against her husband with several girls. She has made the allegations in all the proceedings even when such allegations were not relevant in maintenance proceedings. In the light of these facts, the learned trial Court had rightly held that such allegations also amounts to cruelty. It is immaterial that the said ground has not been taken in the divorce petition, as it is pleaded in written statement. 31. The learned First Appellate Court erred in ignoring settled principles of law referred above. In the light of these facts, the learned trial Court had rightly held that such allegations also amounts to cruelty. It is immaterial that the said ground has not been taken in the divorce petition, as it is pleaded in written statement. 31. The learned First Appellate Court erred in ignoring settled principles of law referred above. Hence, the decree on the ground of mental cruelty deserves to be allowed. In the result, the decree of divorce deserves to be restored. 32. In view of divorce, there is no question of grant of rejection of decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Even otherwise, the conduct of Surekha shows no bona fide to resume cohabitation, and therefore, the rejection of decree of restitution of conjugal rights deserves to be restored. In Lilesh Vinod Agrawal vs. Vinod Ramrichpal Agrawal reported in 2015(6) Mh.L.J. 536 , decree of divorce was challenged by the wife. The Division Bench comprising Justices Vasanti A. Naik & P. B. Varale held that, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights by a wife and her criminal complaint against husband would not go hand in hand. If the wife was desirous of residing with her husband, it is not possible to believe that she could have lodged a complaint in respect of grave and serious offences, against her husband and his family members. The nature of allegations made by wife was very serious and she failed to prove the allegations. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the husband that wild and reckless allegations by the wife against the husband and his family members, if not proved by the wife, amount to cruelty. 33. The petitioner had filed Spl. C.S. No. 45/2008 for maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- for herself and Rs. 4,000/- for her daughter. Pravin has not disputed the relationship with Purva. The evidence on record shows that, Pravin was having a salary of Rs. 24,960/-. His parents and brother were not dependent upon him. His financial condition was sound. The ld. trial Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- for Surekha and Rs. 2,000/- for Purva. The ld. appellate Court has enhanced the amount to Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-, respectively. Still the amount of maintenance is around 40% of the salary of Pravin (for wife and daughter). His financial condition was sound. The ld. trial Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- for Surekha and Rs. 2,000/- for Purva. The ld. appellate Court has enhanced the amount to Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-, respectively. Still the amount of maintenance is around 40% of the salary of Pravin (for wife and daughter). There is evidence and arguments to show that, thereafter, on account of 6th pay commission, the salary was substantially increased but this can be taken into consideration in case the wife files application for enhancement. There is admitted evidence that, Surekha was M.A. B.Ed. and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month. There are no dependents on Pravin. The grant of maintenance by learned first appellate court is neither excessive nor unreasonable and no interference is called for in the same. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) Second Appeal No. 147/2015 is allowed. The judgment and decree of dismissal of the Divorce Petition (HMP) No. 218/2006 by the first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 93/2010 is set aside and the decree of dismissal of divorce passed by ld. CJSD dated 21.09.2010 in HMP No. 2008/2006 is restored. (ii) Second Appeal No. 12/2015 is allowed. The judgment and decree of first appellate Court in Civil Appeal no. 97/2010 is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of CJSD in HMP No.237/2006 of dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights is restored. (iii) Second Appeal No. 279/2015 is dismissed. (iv) In the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs in all the proceedings throughout. Decree shall be drawn up accordingly.