JUDGMENT : 1. The respondent has filed this Misc. First Appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Gulbarga in M.C.No.108/2013 dtd. 30/4/2014 whereby it has allowed the petition filed under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband-respondent herein and dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court. 3. The factual matrix leading to this case are that, the petitioner husband has filed the petition under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce against the respondent wife. It is alleged that the petitioner and respondent are the legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 7/11/2011 at Venkateshwar Kalyan Mantap, Gulbarga and it was a love cum arranged marriage. That after the marriage, respondent has joined the company of the petitioner and out of the said wedlock a son by name Aryan was born on 19/8/2012. It is alleged that after the birth of the child, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent become strained and respondent had refused to prepare/cook the food in the house and also she had not cooperated with the petitioner in marital obligation. It is further alleged that respondent has refused to cohabit with the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner any physical contact with her without any reasons and refused to share bed with him which amounts to mental cruelty. It is also alleged that she used to insist for payment of entire salary to her and later on she ousted the petitioner from his house. It is also alleged that the respondent is suspecting the character of the petitioner making allegation that he is having illicit relationship with others and the marriage bond was irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility to reunion. Hence, the petitioner claims that the act of the respondent amounts to cruelty and sought for dissolution of the marriage. 4. The respondent has appeared and admitted the relationship, but denied the other allegations. She has contended that the petitioner is addicted to bad habits like drinking alcohol, gambling and womanizing and he is a short tampered person, behaved in abnormal and indifferent manner. 4. The respondent has appeared and admitted the relationship, but denied the other allegations. She has contended that the petitioner is addicted to bad habits like drinking alcohol, gambling and womanizing and he is a short tampered person, behaved in abnormal and indifferent manner. She alleged that he used to come to house late in the night and used to insist her to bring dowry from her parents. She also alleged that he sexually harassed her by beating her and used to abuse her in filthy language and she tolerated all these ill-treatment with a hope of change in the attitude of the petitioner in future but there was no improvement. It is alleged that petitioner has not married the respondent whole heartedly as he is having eagle eye over the salary of the respondent and other allowances. Hence, she has sought for rejection of the petition. 5. Initially during the trial before the Family Court, the matter was referred to conciliation, but it did not materialized. Then petitioner himself was got examined as PW-1 and his father was examined as PW-2 and one witness was examined as PW-3. The petitioner has placed reliance on two documents marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The respondent got herself examined as DW-1 and one another witness was examined as DW-2. Ex.D1 was marked which is pertaining to call details between petitioner and one Saroja. 6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent at length. We have also perused the trial court records in detail. 7. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the judgment and decree under the appeal is contrary to law and records of the case. He would also contended that Ex.P2 is not a authenticated document which is inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be looked into. He would also contend that non performance of daily activities alone does not amount to cruelty and he would further contend that non proof of allegations made by the respondent does not assist petitioner to establish the allegations of cruelty and burden is on the petitioner/husband to prove that the allegations are false. He would also contend that documents produced and evidence led by the petitioner does not establish the cruelty as alleged and desertion is not a ground urged for seeking divorce. He would also contend that documents produced and evidence led by the petitioner does not establish the cruelty as alleged and desertion is not a ground urged for seeking divorce. He would also contend that a child was also born and the trial court has failed to consider the future of the child and hence he would seek for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of divorce passed by the trial court. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would vehemently support the judgment of the trial court and contend that the respondent wife all along subjected the husband to cruelty and made false allegations against his character. He would also contend that she occupied the quarters allotted to the petitioner/husband, but ousted him which forced him to take shelter in his sisters house. He would further contend that the marriage bond is broken irretrievably and all the efforts of reunion went in vain. He would also contend that the respondent has also initiated 498-A IPC proceedings as well as Domestic Violence proceedings against the family members as she has not spared any opportunity to harass the husband. Hence, he would contend that considering these aspects and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has come to a right conclusion that marriage bond was broken irretrievably and granted a decree of divorce. Hence, he would submit that there are no grounds forthcoming for interfering with the judgment of the trial court and sought for rejection of the appeal. 9. Having heard the arguments and after perusing the records of the trial court, now the following point would arise for our consideration. Whether the trial court has erred in granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and the judgment and decree of the trial court is erroneous, illegal and arbitrary so as to call for any interference by this court. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 7/11/2011 at Venkateshwar Kalyan Mantap, Gulbarga. It is also an undisputed fact that it was a love cum arranged marriage. Further it is an admitted fact that a son by name Aryan was born on 19/8/2012 out of the said wedlock. It is also evident that both the petitioner and respondent are working in police department. It is also an undisputed fact that it was a love cum arranged marriage. Further it is an admitted fact that a son by name Aryan was born on 19/8/2012 out of the said wedlock. It is also evident that both the petitioner and respondent are working in police department. The petitioner/husband is working as constable in DAR, while the respondent wife is working as a constable in University Police Station initially. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent wife was residing in the police quarters allotted to the petitioner husband and HRA is being deducted from his salary. It is also an undisputed fact that she is residing along with her mother and brother and petitioner is residing in his sisters house at Gulbarga. It is further evident that for last more than 8 years, the parties are residing separately and there is no cohabitation between them. 11. It is also important to note hear that the petition is filed under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act by husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife. The petitioner is not seeking any divorce on the ground of desertion. 12. The petitioner is examined as PW-1 and in his examination in chief, he has reiterated the averments made in the petition. He has further placed reliance on Ex.P1, which is the certified copy of the complaint lodged by one Ravindra Rathod against respondent before S.P.Gulbarga, wherein he has made serious allegations against the respondent in respect of she assaulting the complainant and his wife on the ground that her husband i.e. the present petitioner is having illicit relationship with wife of Ravindra Rathod. Ex.P1 is not under serious dispute. Further the endorsement issued by the respondent to this complaint discloses that she has confessed her mistake that she has made such complaint against the wife of Ravindra Rathod and her husband under mistaken facts. Therefore, it is evident that she was making allegations regarding the character of the petitioner/husband. 13. Though PW-1 was cross examined at length, except a formal denial nothing was elicited so as to impeach his evidence. During the cross examination of PW-1 suggestion has been made to him that he is susceptive in nature about respondents character which is nobodys case. The petitioner has also placed reliance regarding printout of conversation messages sent by respondent to petitioner under Ex.P2. During the cross examination of PW-1 suggestion has been made to him that he is susceptive in nature about respondents character which is nobodys case. The petitioner has also placed reliance regarding printout of conversation messages sent by respondent to petitioner under Ex.P2. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for appellant, these documents are not admissible in evidence unless the person who downloaded and got printed these documents is examined and certification under Sec. 65(b) of Evidence Act is filed. However, during the cross examination of PW1 a suggestion was made to him that he has produced the conversation of respondent which was recorded in his mobile. By making such suggestion, the defense counsel has admitted the contents of Ex.P2 and when Ex.P2 is admitted by making the suggestion to petitioner himself in his cross examination, question of proving the said admitted document does not arise at all. The language used in the said conversation is vulgar, to say the least. It is argued that since both the parties are working in police department, use of such a language is common to them. But that may be proper in respect of their duty, but when they are conversing with each other as husband and wife some dignity and or decorum are required to be maintained. But these conversation under Ex.P2 disclose that it has crossed the limit. These conversations speak in volume about the strained relationship between the parties and breach in the mutual trust which is the foundation for the marriage bond. 14. The respondent wife is examined as DW1 and in her evidence she has denied the allegations made against her. However in the cross examination, she admits that she is now residing along with her mother and brother in the official quarter allotted to petitioner. She also admits that her in laws are residing in Jewargi. Her evidence does disclose that they were in love two years prior to the marriage and they were dating for almost two years which was subsequently resulted in marriage. Though in Ex.P1 she has confessed that under mistaken facts she made allegations, but again during her evidence, she made allegations regarding character of the petitioner alleging that he was addicted to bad vices such as drinking, gambling and is a womanizer. Though in Ex.P1 she has confessed that under mistaken facts she made allegations, but again during her evidence, she made allegations regarding character of the petitioner alleging that he was addicted to bad vices such as drinking, gambling and is a womanizer. In her cross examination, she refused to disclose the name of the ladies with whom the petitioner had extra marital affair on the ground that she cannot disclose her name. This clearly discloses that she is making serious allegations about character / chastity of petitioner without their being any piece of material evidence. The chastity / character is not the property of woman alone and the said principle is also applicable to a man. Hence, merely because the respondent is a woman, she cannot make scandalous allegations regarding the character of her husband. She has placed reliance on Ex.D1 which is alleged to be a mobile conversation between Saroja W/o Ravindra Rathod and the petitioner. At the first instance, how she got this call sheet is not at all forthcoming and the author of the call sheet is also not examined. Hence, Ex.D1 itself is inadmissible in evidence. Apart from that, no evidence is placed to show that the particular mobile numbers belong to said Saroja and the petitioner. On the contrary, Ex.P1 itself establishes that Saroja is related to petitioner and under such circumstances Ex.D1 does not help the respondent wife in any way. 15. No doubt non cooking of the food or non assistance in the family affairs by itself does not amount to cruelty. Further, there is no material evidence regarding demand of entire salary as claimed by the petitioner. However, the allegations regarding the character assassination in respect of extra marital life and denying the marital cohabitation amount to cruelty. For withdrawal from matrimonial relation, there should be sufficient and reasonable cause, but they are missing in the instant case. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1631/2004 dtd. 24/3/2014 in the case of Katada Baby @ Kollati Baby V/s Katadi Sri Venkata Satya Raja Sekhar. He has also further placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1998 (5) ALD 349 in the case of Naval Kishore Somani Vs/ Poonam Somani. 24/3/2014 in the case of Katada Baby @ Kollati Baby V/s Katadi Sri Venkata Satya Raja Sekhar. He has also further placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1998 (5) ALD 349 in the case of Naval Kishore Somani Vs/ Poonam Somani. On the basis of these citations he would contend that to establish strict proof in accordance with evidentiary rule is absolutely indispensable. He would also contend that merely because the allegations made by the wife in the counter are not substantiated, that does not amount to proof of cruelty and in order to succeed on the ground of cruelty, the petitioner is required to establish falsity of such a allegation. In the said case petitioner sought to take advantage of allegation of cruelty levelled in counter being not proved, amounts to cruelty on him which was not accepted as he was required to prove his ground of cruelty but not in the negative. Such rule is applicable only when petitioner is seeking to prove cruelty on the basis of allegation made in counter. But the facts and circumstances of the said case are entirely different. In the present case, the allegations of cruelty were based on the character assassination in respect of extra marital relationship of petitioner/husband with some other lady without making any efforts to establish the same. Further, initially the respondent wife has made allegations regarding extra marital relationship of petitioner with Saroja, but subsequently confessed under Ex.P1 that it was under mistaken fact. However again in her objection statement as well as in her evidence she has made allegations against him, but failed to disclose the name of the woman on the ground that she cannot disclose the name of said lady for the best reasons to known to her. Hence, when such serious allegations regarding character has been made, same is required to be substantiated and negative burden cannot be placed on petitioner to disprove the same. Hence, the principle elicited the above cited decisions will not come to the aid of the appellant in any way. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on a decision reported in SCC- 1999 (3) 620 in the case of S.Hanumantha Rao V/s S.Ramani. Hence, the principle elicited the above cited decisions will not come to the aid of the appellant in any way. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on a decision reported in SCC- 1999 (3) 620 in the case of S.Hanumantha Rao V/s S.Ramani. But the facts and circumstances of said case are entirely different and in the said case there was no allegations regarding character assassination, but the allegations were regarding desertion and removing mangalsutra by the wife which is held that it cannot be termed as cruelty. But the facts of the present case are entirely different. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent/ husband has placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 1675 in the case of Naveen Kohli V/s Neelu Kohli, wherein the Honble Apex Court in para 56, 68 and 80 has dealt with issue of cruelty and irretrievably breakdown of marriage which is reproduced herewith: 56. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Sec. 10 of the Act. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Sec. 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. 68. 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. 80. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond. 19. The said principles are directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as in the instant case also the marriage bond was broken irretrievably and all the efforts to reconcile went in vain. Matrimonial bond is broken beyond repair in the instant case also and the marriage bond stays on trust and faith on each other. But in the instant case, that itself is lacking as the wife is making scandalous allegations against the character of the husband and his extra marital relationship without any piece of evidence. Matrimonial bond is broken beyond repair in the instant case also and the marriage bond stays on trust and faith on each other. But in the instant case, that itself is lacking as the wife is making scandalous allegations against the character of the husband and his extra marital relationship without any piece of evidence. Though she is working in police department, such scandalous allegations definitely amounts to cruelty and coupled with the same, there is denial of marital obligation and comfort of physical relationship between husband and wife. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on a decision reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 in the case of Samar Ghosh V/s Jaya Ghosh, wherein the Honble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with concept of mental cruelty. In the said case also the wife has refused cohabitation and stopped sharing bed with husband which is held to be mental cruelty on the husband. In the instant case also the appellant/wife has refused to share the bed and also making scandalous character assassination and that definitely attracts the definition of cruelty especially mental cruelty. Further all the efforts made for reconciliation did not materialized. This court has also made all possible efforts for reconciliation, but they did not yield any fruitful results. The very foundation of marriage is demolished in the instant case, due to loss of mutual trust and faith and as such marriage bond is broken irretrievably as marriage bond ruptured beyond repairs. As such no purpose will be served by continuing the marriage bond only for the sake of records. Under these circumstances, looking to these facts and circumstances and on appreciating the evidence on record, it is evident that appellant has failed to make out any justifiable grounds to interfere with the judgment and the decree of the trial court. The judgment and decree of the trial court cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal or erroneous so as to call for interference. Under these circumstances, the appeal is bound to fail and accordingly we answer the point under consideration in the negative and proceed to pass the following; ORDER Appeal stands dismissed.