JUDGMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This is wife’s appeal under section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-2010, passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS No. 166-A/2009, allowing husband’s petition under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955), dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. 2. Brief facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 13-6-2006 at Shiv Temple Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal. Soon after the marriage the relations between the parties had become strained which led the respondent to file a petition under section 13(1) of the Act of 1955. The respondent-husband has stated that the appellant-wife is a government servant. She is quarrelsome and stubborn lady. She used to abuse him and threatened to commit suicide. Her constant hostile, arrogant and provocative attitude had caused irreparable damage to his social status and personal life. Constant misunderstanding between them soured their relationship. On 1-7-2006, the respondent-husband was driven out of home by the appellant-wife. The appellant-wife used foul and abusive language to the old and ailing parents of the respondent-husband on phone. The respondent-husband also stated that he lodged the report before the Superintendent of Police AJK, Bhopal complaining about the behaviour of the appellant-wife. However, no action was taken. According to him without any intimation/ permission to anyone in the family of the respondent-husband, she used to leave matrimonial house. She used to behave in an indecent manner in the presence of the guest and did not do any household work. He also stated that on 5-7-2007 the appellant-wife agreed for dissolution of marriage under section 13(B) of the Act of 1955 with consent. However, on 26-6-2008, she resiled from her commitment. The respondent-husband by way of amendment in his divorce petition pleaded that after issuance of notice of the divorce petition, the appellant-wife lodged a false case under section 498-A of the IPC for demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakhs. All these factors, according to the respondent-husband cumulatively, if taken into consideration, clearly postulate mental cruelty. 3. The appellant-wife while filing her written statement has denied all allegations made by the respondent-husband. 5 Lakhs. All these factors, according to the respondent-husband cumulatively, if taken into consideration, clearly postulate mental cruelty. 3. The appellant-wife while filing her written statement has denied all allegations made by the respondent-husband. She stated that she is working as a government servant after clearing a competitive examination. She being an educated lady understands as to how her behaviour should be. Despite she is working with the government, she was fully and sincerely discharging her marital obligation. She is serving and assisting her in-laws despite various adversities. She was always ready and willing to reside with the respondent-husband and even now she is willing to live with the respondent-husband. She further stated that the respondent-husband is a journalist and is pressurizing the appellant-wife and her family members for divorce. She denied filing of any petition under section 13(B) of the Act of 1955. However, she states that the respondent-husband got her signature on some blank papers under the pretext that the respondent-husband was availing car loan and she stood as Guarantor. She also stated that since she belongs to Scheduled Caste and this fact was not acceptable to the family of the respondent-husband. Therefore, in-laws wanted to destroy the relationship of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband. 4. The learned Family Court after framing issues has recorded the evidence of the parties. After considering material available on record and the decisions in the cases of Smt. Shobha Soni vs. Dinesh Kumar, F.A.468/2002 dated 25-7-2008, Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706 , Surbhi Agrawal vs. Sanjay Agrawal, 2000(1) M.P.L.J. 575 ., A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, 2005 AIR SCW 163, Madhuri Aswani vs. Arjundas Aswani, 2007(2) MPHT 498 (DB), Romesh Chander vs. Smt. Savitri, (1995) 2 SCC 7 , Rishikesh Sharma vs. Saroj Sharma, (2007) 2 SCC 263 , Smt. Vandana Gupta vs. Rajesh Gupta, 2009(1) MPHT 72 , Laxmi Sondhiya (Smt.) vs. Shiv Saran Sondhiya, 2009(5) MPHT 202 (DB), Hemlata Sonwani vs. Dr. K. R. Sonwani, 2010 SCC ONLINE CG-32., Raman Kumar vs. Bhavna (Smt.), 2009(5) MPHT 170 (DB) it has been held that the respondent-husband has successfully proved the case of the cruelty and there was no possibility of any reconciliation between the parties. The marriage between them had become dead for all practical purposes and under such circumstances there was no useful purpose to drag such relationship any further. 5. The marriage between them had become dead for all practical purposes and under such circumstances there was no useful purpose to drag such relationship any further. 5. Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel appearing for the wife has submitted that impugned judgment and decree is perverse. He vehemently stated that Court below has erred in placing reliance on the decision dated 13-1-2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in discharging the respondent-husband under section 498-A and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, whereas, the State Government has already challenged the said decision before the Appellate Court. He also states that a fact of pendency of the proceedings under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should not have been taken into consideration by Family Court and for all those reasons he prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision in the matter of Deepak Natkar vs. Deepali Natkar, AIR 1992 MP 278 , Shyam Sunder Kohli vs. Sushma Kohli, (2004) 7 SCC 747 , S. Nagaraj vs. Smt. K. Shashikala, 2014 SCC ONLINE KAR-1156. 6. Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree and has stated that the learned Family Court has considered the entire evidence and material in right perspective. According to him not only the appellant-wife had resiled from her affidavit which she had given for the divorce under section 13-B of the Act of 1955, but even during the pendency of the present proceedings also she withdrew the present first appeal on 16-9-2012 on the ground that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. However, on 12-8-2013 in MCC No. 865 of 2012 she prayed for revival of the proceedings of the present appeal. According to him the appellant-wife is an arrogant lady. She does not want to live peacefully with the respondent-husband and taking into consideration the unbridgeable gap between the parties there does not arise any question of reunion at this stage when the respondent-husband had already been charged under section 498-A of IPC and has suffered significant social and personal loss. He places reliance on the decision of the Manju Kumar Singh alias Smt. Manju Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh, AIR 2018 SC 3629 . 7. He places reliance on the decision of the Manju Kumar Singh alias Smt. Manju Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh, AIR 2018 SC 3629 . 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before the Court below, the respondent-husband has examined himself as PW-1 and Rakesh Sharma as PW-2, who was his friend. On behalf of the appellant-wife, she examined herself as DW-1 and Jitendra Jangani as DW-2 in support of her case. 8. The respondent-husband has produced documentary evidence as Ex. P/1 to Ex.P/8, however, no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant-wife. A perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondent-husband unequivocally proves that a petition under section 13-B of the Act of 1955 for dissolution of marriage between the parties was filed by them on 5-7-2007 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal which was withdrawn on 26-6-2008. It also remains uncontroverted that charge sheet for offence under section 498-A of IPC was filed against the respondent-husband before the competent Court pursuant to FIR dated 2-5-2009 at police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal and in the said case the competent Court had discharged the respondent-husband. 9. In the instant case, the respondent-husband has successfully proved that the appellant-wife was abusing and her overall behaviour was so abnormal and below the accepted norms that he could not be reasonably expected to put-up with her. The facts prove that the appellant-wife made certain incorrect allegations in the F.I.R. such as forceful abortion under the pressure of the respondent-husband on many occasions and demand of dowry etc. The fact that the appellant-wife also signed the papers and filed a petition under section 13-B of the Act of 1955 for mutual consent is also proved. She also withdrew the present first appeal and, thereafter, filed an application for its revival. The overall conduct of the appellant-wife proves that there are indifferences between the parties to an irreparable extent. Her behaviour is obviously within the for-corners of mental cruelty and no spouse can be expected to live a peaceful life under such circumstances. 10. The learned Court below has considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and rightly analyzed the evidence in the impugned judgment concluding that the overall conduct of the appellant-wife clearly constitutes mental cruelty. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Court below. 10. The learned Court below has considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and rightly analyzed the evidence in the impugned judgment concluding that the overall conduct of the appellant-wife clearly constitutes mental cruelty. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Court below. In addition to the reasoning given by the learned Court below, we observe that the appellant-wife being well educated lady is not expected to resort to lodge a false case of demand of dowry against the husband only because there are some differences between them. Such a conduct becomes more serious when it is resorted to by highly educated people. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons we decline to interfere into the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. The appeal is hereby dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.