JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2009, passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Banda, dismissing the Original Suit No. 226 of 2006, instituted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Essential facts for the purpose of adjudicating this appeal are that plaintiff wife got married with respondent on 22nd June, 1997 at Banda. Out of this wedlock a female child was born on 3rd May, 1998, although as per the school records her date of birth is mentioned as 29.4.1999. Parties pursuant to the marriage continued to live at Jaipur. Proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage was initiated by the wife in the year 2006, with the allegation that after an year of marriage she was ill-treated by the husband on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry with her in the marriage. It was stated in para 3 that there is a major difference in the age of the parties, inasmuch as wife was stated to be of 27 years in 2006 while the husband was reported to be of 40 years. It was asserted that the husband used to force physical relations with the wife contrary to her wish, which resulted in successive unwanted pregnancy and abortions, causing mental and physical cruelty for the wife. It was stated that plaintiff used to do all household works but cruelty over a period of time increased and the husband regularly used to ill-treat her and hurl abuses etc. In para 5 it was stated that after the father of plaintiff fell ill, she was not permitted to visit him and was thrown out of the house in August, 2005. The wife claims to have lived in a separate tenanted accommodation, but it was not possible for her to continue long at such place and she ultimately shifted to Banda. Initially a divorce suit was filed before the Family Court, Jaipur but the same was subsequently withdrawn on 11.11.2006. The proceedings were instituted at Banda with the allegation that she is residing with her father at Banda, and therefore, the Court at Banda has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. 3. A written statement was filed by the husband denying the plaint allegations. The proceedings were instituted at Banda with the allegation that she is residing with her father at Banda, and therefore, the Court at Banda has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. 3. A written statement was filed by the husband denying the plaint allegations. The husband specifically denied all acts of cruelty and ill-treatment alleged to have been meted out by him. It was stated that the plaintiff is an open minded lady, and intends to live life in her own manner, without following the marital obligations, which has resulted in humiliation as well as mental cruelty for the husband. He asserted that the wife is used to of living a luxurious life, and does not believe in discharging social obligations expected to be performed by a wife in family. In para 6, it was alleged that plaintiff being a Hindu lady was under the influence of a Muslim named Hashim and had started living separately. It was alleged that this person is residing in Delhi, whereas his wife and child are residing in Adarsh Nagar at Jaipur. It was stated that proceeding under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. was also initiated for such reasons. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff used to frequently talk with Hashim on phone and call records were brought on record. 4. After filing of written statement, an amendment application was moved by the wife, and was allowed. By way of amendment, the wife added another ground for cruelty i.e. levelling of false and frivolous allegations against her, which had caused severe mental cruelty, apart from causing disrepute in the society. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court formulated following two issues for determination in the suit : “(i). Whether the wife is entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13 against the defendant? (ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief?” 5. In support of the plea taken by the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined namely; plaintiff herself and her father, whereas defendant husband gave his oral testimony in opposition before the Court below. The trial Court on the basis of evidence brought on record came to a conclusion that allegation of demand of dowry by the wife was unfounded and not established, inasmuch as while marriage was performed in 1997, no instance of demand of dowry was cited before any authority till filing of the suit. The trial Court on the basis of evidence brought on record came to a conclusion that allegation of demand of dowry by the wife was unfounded and not established, inasmuch as while marriage was performed in 1997, no instance of demand of dowry was cited before any authority till filing of the suit. No specific finding on the aspect of adultery, however, was returned by the Court below. No issue was framed on this aspect of the matter, either. So far as plea of difference in age, set up by wife is concerned, the trial Court noticed the oral testimony of plaintiff’s father acknowledging that he was aware of 10 year age difference prior to the marriage, while the wife claimed age difference to be 13 years. This ground was accordingly disbelieved. The trial Court found that the relations between the parties had turned sour on account of doubts and suspicion against each other. So far as the call details are concerned, it was observed that no evidence was adduced to show as to in whose name Sim Card itself was issued, and whether it is in the name of plaintiff? The Court below found that the plaintiff was residing in Delhi and gainfully employed, while her daughter, who was about 11 years, was residing with maternal grandparents at Banda. On the basis of evidence adduced, the trial Court came to a conclusion that merely for the reason that marital bond was aspected by suspicion, it would not be appropriate to dissolve the marriage, particularly when welfare of 11 year old daughter was at stake. With such findings the suit was rejected. Aggrieved by it, the plaintiff appellant is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that levelling of false and unsubstantiated allegation of adultery by the husband against wife itself was a clear instance of cruelty proved on record. Learned counsel contends that the alleged person i.e. Mr. Hashim, was not adduced in evidence and the wife had specifically denied all such allegations. The allegation by the husband of plaintiff being under influence of Mr. Hashim was not substantiated by any evidence. It is also contended that parties are living separately for the last more than 12 years, and the marriage for all practical purposes has seized to have any relevance. The allegation by the husband of plaintiff being under influence of Mr. Hashim was not substantiated by any evidence. It is also contended that parties are living separately for the last more than 12 years, and the marriage for all practical purposes has seized to have any relevance. Various other grounds have also been urged in support of appeal, which shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the husband, on the other hand, contends that the allegation of cruelty since has not been substantiated and found to be proved, the decree of trial Court requires no interference. It is also stated that husband is willing to accept the wife even now, particularly in view of the fact that parties have only one daughter. It is also contended that just because wife is not intending to perform her part of marital obligation would not be sufficient for her to seek divorce, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. I have heard Sri Sanjeev Singh and Sri Dileep Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the appellant, and Sri Amit Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to note that this Court on 9.1.2018 directed the parties to appear before the Court, so as to explore possibility of an amicable settlement in the matter. Order dated 9.1.2018 reads as under : “This appeal arises out of matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to require the parties to appear before the Court on 2.2.2018 so as to explore possibility of an amicable settlement in the matter. List on 2.2.2018.” 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, both the litigating parties have appeared before me, and they have been heard in Chamber. Both the parties have categorically admitted before the Court that they are living separately for a period of more than last 12 years. It is also admitted to them that no proceedings under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights have been initiated by the husband. However, the possibility of an amicable settlement was ruled out, and therefore, this appeal has been heard on merits. 11. It is also admitted to them that no proceedings under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights have been initiated by the husband. However, the possibility of an amicable settlement was ruled out, and therefore, this appeal has been heard on merits. 11. On the basis of materials placed out on record and the submissions made, following points arise for determination in the present appeal : (i) Whether on account of continued separation for over 12 years, the matrimonial bond between the parties is severed, in fact, and they are only tied by law, and that continuance of marital tie, in such circumstances would be unjust and cause cruelty? (ii) Whether plaintiff wife has been able to establish her plea of cruelty against the husband on the basis of evidence adduced? (iii) Whether the plaintiff appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce, in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 12. The first issue is taken up at the outset. According to the plaint allegations, husband and wife have been living separately since August, 2005. Initially a suit was filed at Jaipur on 12.4.2006 but the same was withdrawn, whereafter the present suit was instituted on 25.11.2006. The parties before this Court have categorically admitted that they are living separately for the last over 12 years, which fact is not doubted by any other material available on record. It is thus admitted fact that they are living separately since August, 2005. Though the husband is contesting the plea of wife to seek divorce, but it is also a matter on record that he has not instituted any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. The divorce suit instituted by the wife was dismissed in the year 2009. Prior to 2009, or even subsequent in point of time, no efforts appear to have been made by the husband to get his wife back. In such circumstances, an obvious inference is drawn on admitted facts that marital bond between the couple has virtually broken. Emotions to bind the relationship is absent. Once that be the situation, it would hardly serve any purpose for the parties to continue in a legal relationship of husband and wife, when in fact parties are not willing and serious in discharging their marital obligations. The daughter born out of this wedlock is now major and is stated to be pursuing her graduation. 13. Once that be the situation, it would hardly serve any purpose for the parties to continue in a legal relationship of husband and wife, when in fact parties are not willing and serious in discharging their marital obligations. The daughter born out of this wedlock is now major and is stated to be pursuing her graduation. 13. Although irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground under Section 13 to dissolve the marriage, but it certainly is a relevant consideration to determine as to whether the matrimonial bond subsists and ought to be continued any further. In a case where there is an emotional rupture and the parties are living separately for the last more than 12 years, the insistence on part of a Court of law to force them to live together may cause untold miseries and result in cruelty. 14. The law on the subject is clear and categorical. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down following instances as amounting to cruelty. Para 101 of the Apex Court’s judgment is reproduced : “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) ....................................... (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. (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. (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) ............................... (viii) .............................. (ix) ............................... (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 treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) ............................... (viii) .............................. (ix) ............................... (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. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (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.” Sub-para (xiv) of para 101 of the judgment is categorical, inasmuch as it has clearly been observed that where the marriage becomes a fiction, it does not serve the sanctity of institution of marriage and continuance of marital bond, particularly when emotions and feelings have seized to exist, may lead to mental cruelty. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Arti Pandey v. Vishnu Kant Tiwari, 2012(10) ADJ 619 , has also taken a similar view in the facts of the case when the wife had shown no inclination to continue with the matrimonial bond. Long separation would be a relevant ground in considering a plea for dissolution of marriage. The Court can also not be oblivious of the serious allegations levelled by the husband against wife. Whether or not allegation of adultery is established on the basis of evidence, the fact remains that the respect for each other is seriously dented. There is a clear rupture of matrimonial bond between the parties, and it would be unjust to insist upon the parties to continue with marriage, in such circumstances. The plaintiff appellant has stated before the Court that she is employed and does not expect any alimony from the husband. There is a clear rupture of matrimonial bond between the parties, and it would be unjust to insist upon the parties to continue with marriage, in such circumstances. The plaintiff appellant has stated before the Court that she is employed and does not expect any alimony from the husband. Though the husband has shown concern for the daughter and has further expressed his willingness to continue with the marriage, but his conduct does not truly reflect such sentiment. Not only that he has not initiated any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, but has otherwise not come forward to seek any visitation rights to meet the daughter over such years. Apparently the husband has not taken any pro-active steps to support his wife or the daughter during the last 12 years. The daughter has also appeared before the Court alongwith her mother and has informed that she is studying in a Private University in Noida and is being looked after by the mother. 16. There may be differing views based upon cultural traditions, religious believes, legal requirement and ideas about fairness and basic human rights as to what constitutes integral attributes of marriage, but absence of companionship, care and love for a long period, afflicted by mistrust and accusation relating to character etc. hardly leaves any scope for institution of marriage to be continued, and the law would not be accused of being unjust, if such marriage is ordered to be dissolved. In such circumstances, the plaintiff appellant is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage. In view of the conclusions drawn while answering the first question posed, there would be no necessity of adjudicating other issues framed. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below, dated 17.9.2009, is set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for dissolution of marriage is decreed.