JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2017 passed by Family Judge No. 3, Kota, whereby learned court below has dismissed the divorce petition preferred under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Petitioner Ajay Ahuja has brought instant petition before the court below against his defendant bride Smt. Neelam Taneja for dissolution of the marriage pleading that the couple had married in October 2002 and both the sides solemnized their second marriage, defendant had confided that she was not having any issue out of the first wedlock, which was later found false, despite this untoward, petitioner forgiven his wife for the same, who was habitual of non-performing the domestic chores and was always abusive towards the petitioner, she would often indict unsubstantiated allegations and would call police party without reason and always kept petitioner's family under threat, she disassociated herself from the marital consortium and failed to oblige nuptial obligations and there remains no relations between the couple, petitioner has been subjected to unending cruelty, she has also threatened often to put the petitioner and his family behind the bars, so there was no option except to seek annulment of the marriage. 3. Refuting the pleadings advanced, defendant has pleaded in her written-statements that all the allegations levelled against her are false, she has always rendered befitting family services to her husband and to his family, rather attitude of her petitioner husband has remained cruel and sarcastic and under influence of liquor petitioner would wet the bed and defendant would constrained to change his dirty wet clothes and he has not rendered family obligations, rather respondent has acted efficiently by doing all the family activities and defendant has illegally been ousted, there is no fault on the part of the defendant, she is not in a position to live apart at this advanced age and there is no reason for grant of divorce, appeal lacks merit and it be dismissed. 4. The court below, after going through the pleadings, has formulated following issues:- (i) Whether the defendant has behaved with cruelty? (ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to get decree for divorce? (iii) Relief. Both the parties have recorded their testimonies in their support, defendant Smt. Neelam Taneja has also produced NAW 2 Sumit Manchanda in her favour. 4. The court below, after going through the pleadings, has formulated following issues:- (i) Whether the defendant has behaved with cruelty? (ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to get decree for divorce? (iii) Relief. Both the parties have recorded their testimonies in their support, defendant Smt. Neelam Taneja has also produced NAW 2 Sumit Manchanda in her favour. After appreciating the evidence of both the sides, learned court below has passed the order impugned dismissing the prayer to annul the marriage and instant petition is before us against the said order. 5. Heard the arguments, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned court below has committed error and has faulted in disallowing annulment of marriage. Behaviour of the respondent-defendant is not amicable, both the sides had solemnized their second marriage, defendant had informed the petitioner that she was not having any baby out of her first wedlock but after marriage, it could be known that respondent was having a daughter out of the earlier first wedlock but as an open minded person, the petitioner kept it in oblivion and pardoned the flaw. Defendant would not prepare meals and was accustomed to hurl abuses and on trifles she would often call police escort and kept the family always under threat, owing to her unbecoming attitude, defendant compelled to reside in the matrimonial house without establishing conjugal relations. Petitioner has constrained to nurture matrimonial relationship, defendant is continuously perperating torture and cruelty, so the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce and despite proving, court below has erroneously passed dismissal decree, which deserves to be reversed and petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce. 6. Petitioner has constrained to nurture matrimonial relationship, defendant is continuously perperating torture and cruelty, so the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce and despite proving, court below has erroneously passed dismissal decree, which deserves to be reversed and petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce. 6. Per contra, it has been urged by learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Neelam Taneja that allegations levelled against defendant are baseless, rather she has been traumatized and beaten by her husband, she has been thwarted and compelled to stay in another room of the house, petitioner is a habitual drunkard and under influence of alcohol, severe beatings have been given to her, she has been subjected to taunts by uttering that she is single-eyed disabled lady, in her youth she has rendered all befitting domestic services to the petitioner and his family, she has now grown and has got restricted movements, despite she is being ill-treated, petitioner often assaults her and beats her and utters to be out of the house, she has got no shelter, she has not treated the petitioner with any alleged cruelty, rather she has been subjected to torture and cruelty in this advanced age, she is not inclined for dissolution of marriage, order impugned does not suffers from any wrong and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material. During the course of pendency of the appeal both the sides have taken adjournments for getting the tangle resolved through mutual and amicable settlement and for one time alimony and time has been sought by both the sides for the same but the parties have failed to reconcile or arrive at a consensus, we have also rendered an opportunity to both the sides to interact but the exercise has gone unyielding, so we are deciding the dispute on merits. 8. It emerges from the evidence that petitioner Ajay Ahuja, while corroborating the pleadings, has specifically stated that he has been subjected to cruelty by his wife after the marriage, he has stated that attitude of Neelam Taneja was not becoming after the marriage, she used to abuse, she would cry and scuffle, after marriage of her daughter, she became more aggressive and intensity of harassment was so eminent that he had to suffer a heart stroke and had to be hospitalized. Severally she went to police to file false complaints, which resulted into his custody twice and he had to seek bail. She has uttered that she will spoil his senile life and won't allow happiness to his sons, in their married life, she frequently threat to get him entangled in litigation, in cross-examination he has stated that if he is forced to stay with his wife then something unpleasant could happen. He is fair in admitting that he is habitual to take liquor and non-vegetarian food but never allegedly beats his wife after taking liquor, once he was apprehended for breach of peace, he has also stated that his wife had met with an accident and sustained bone fractures, temperament of his wife is not amicable, by misusing her rights, she has forced him to be under custody twice, he has also admitted that the premium towards his LIC is not in knowledge having been paid by his wife or his wife lending two lakh rupees to his son and has also stated that if that be the matter, the money will be repaid, he has also admitted that he shun eating meals prepared by his wife post his arrest. Appreciation of evidence of DW 1 Neelam Taneja defendant-respondent, does reveal factum of dispute having been taken place severally between the couple, Smt. Taneja has stated that her attitude has remained social and amicable and she has rendered all the domestic help to the husband and his family and has never misbehaved and has also stated that attitude of her husband has remained quarrelsome and demeaning, he is a heavy drunkard and use to consume 750 ml full bottle daily and after taking liquor he utters unbecoming and would beat the defendant, he perperated inhuman and unbecoming treatment to his first wife Shireen, which turned her insane, he would oust her under the influence of liquor and perperated cruelty upon her. Once when petitioner was asked not to consume liquor he gave an empty bottle blow upon her head, which has caused persistent headache to the defendant, once when she visited his shop, he forced the shop-shutter down, which hit her on the head resulting loss of vision of her right eye, thus she suffered vision loss, his behaviour is intolerably cruel and threaten that he would cause her vision gone and he returns late under intoxication and while lying down, wet the bed and would sleep stripped whole the night, she would make him clothes worn. On 07.08.2014 all her family members have ousted her, even her father-in-law narrated that "better she get her transferred to other place since they are not able to help her", she extends regard to her father-in-law, she has also stated that her life has turned akin to hell and she has been kept as a domestic help. 9. Apart from the date of marriage, nothing contrary to the pleadings has appeared in the evidence of both the sides. 10. Smt. Neelam Taneja has produced Sunit Manchanda, a shopkeeper as NAW 2, who has just narrated that while Neelam Taneja visited his shop as a customer, she rang her husband who ill-treated and hurled abuses on the telephone and has thus testified as a hearsay by saying that Smt. Neelam narrated her woes. 11. Appraisal of the testimony of both the sides does indicate that relations of both the parties have turned irreconcilably hostile to each other, for years together petitioner is not accepting meals prepared by his defendant wife and the conjugal relations have also snatched, in cross-examination Ajay Ahuja has stated that if his wife is permitted to reside alongwith then any misfortune may happen to him, companionship of both the couple is impossible, it is not disputed that the couple has solemnized second marriage, respectively. 12. 12. The defendant-respondent Smt. Neelam Taneja has repeatedly stated that she has been tortured, traumatized, beaten and subjected to unbecoming filthy words, she has been ousted and advised to stay away, she has herself stated that her life has become alike in a Hell in the matrimonial house and she has been left nothing less than a domestic help, on complaints of Neelam Taneja her petitioner husband has twice been apprehended, he is a habitual liquor addict, since he has himself stated in his cross-examination that he consumes liquor. 13. Cruelty has not been defined in the Act but it can be physical or mental and could be a ground for dissolution of marriage and may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger, the question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. In A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 , the Apex Court has observed that from the conduct of the spouse same is established and an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse about his or her mental welfare, then this conduct amounts to cruelty. The Apex Court has held in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 , as under:- "..Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behavior as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised 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 do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.." 14. In Satish Sitole vs. Smt. Ganga (2008) 7 SCC 734 , Supreme Court has held that when a marriage is dead emotionally and practically and there is no chance of its being retrieved, the continuance of such a marriage would amount to cruelty. 15. It is evident that the couple has solemnized their second marriage and the relations of both the sides have become miserably hostile to each other, even the conjugal relations have since ceased, both are apprehending threat to each others' life from the other side, petitioner is a businessman and respondent is a government servant, who has rendered fiscal help to her family as well, which too has appeared in the evidence. Fiduciary relations and mutual trust basics of wedlock have shattered and both the sides have lost their faith and have stated in their evidence that there is no possibility of any reconciliation and both the sides have got apprehensions in each others association. Twice petitioner has been taken into custody and has caused serious beating injuries to his defendant wife, which has almost diminished her vision vulnerably. Supreme Court has laid down in Satish Sitole vs. Smt. Ganga (2008) 7 SCC 734 , that when a marriage is dead emotionally and practically and there is no chance of its being retrieved, continuance of such marriage would amount to cruelty. Relations of the couple have miserably broken-down and have become hostile in irreconcilable and irretrievable way. In the afore discussed facts and circumstances, it would be benevolent to dissolve the nuptial relations subject to grant of a permanent alimony in the tune of Rs.eight lakh to Smt. Neelam Taneja. Thus, while setting aside the decree and order impugned, we annul the marriage of the couple. Petitioner Ajay Ahuja is directed to pay a permanent alimony of Rs. eight lakh to his separating wife Smt. Neelam Taneja towards her entire claims, within a period of thirty days from today, failing which the said amount will fetch 12% simple interest per annum. Decree be drawn accordingly.