ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant filed Title (Mat.) Suit No. 108 of 2015 which was renumbered as Original Suit No. 108 of 2015 (in short, divorce case), seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the respondent which was solemnized on 29th April 2013 at village Rajopur of Govindganj PS, within East Champaran district in the State of Bihar. 2. The divorce case has been dismissed by the judgment dated 25th January 2019 against which the appellant has preferred the present First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 3. The Family Court has held that the appellant inflicted cruelty upon his wife on non-fulfillment of the demand for a Scorpio car and ousted her from her matrimonial home on 20th July 2013. The Family Court has also taken note of the criminal case filed by brother of the appellant vide CP Case No. 974 of 2014 which has ended in acquittal of the respondent and her family members. 4. After having considered the materials produced by the parties in the divorce case, the Family Court has held as under: “9. Hence, from the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not been able to prove the allegations of cruelty as levelled against his wife/respondent. On the contrary, prima facie the respondent has proved that due to non-fulfillment of their said demand of car, she was subjected to cruelty and torture by the petitioner and his family members. Hence, this issue no. iii is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. 10. Now, I would like to deal with the issue nos. i, ii & iv. Since, the main issue i.e. issue no. iii has been decided in favour of the wife/respondent and against the petitioner/husband, hence this suit is not maintainable, there is no valid cause of action for the present suit and the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, issue nos. i, ii & iv are also decided in favour of the wife/respondent and against the petitioner/husband.” 5. The aforesaid findings have been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Family Court has failed to consider the effect of the respondent staying away from his company just after two and half month of the marriage. Accordingly, issue nos. i, ii & iv are also decided in favour of the wife/respondent and against the petitioner/husband.” 5. The aforesaid findings have been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Family Court has failed to consider the effect of the respondent staying away from his company just after two and half month of the marriage. It is submitted that the appellant has taken a specific plea that filing of criminal case against him and making defamatory allegations against his family members due to which he had to undergo jail custody have caused such mental cruelty that he has a reasonable apprehension that it would be dangerous for him to live with his wife. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Family Court: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the respondent (wife) committed subjected to cruelty against the petitioner (husband) after marriage and whether the petitioner (husband) is entitled to get a Decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for? 7. In the trial, the appellant examined his brother and father, who as witnesses supported the allegations made by him against the respondent. The appellant has also laid in evidence photocopy of the certified copy of the Informatory Petition No. 19 of 2014 marked as “X”, photocopy of original petition of CP Case No. 293 of 2014 marked as “X/1”, photocopy of original petition of MP Case No. 71 of 2014 marked as “X/2” and photocopy of the certified copy of CP Case No. 974 of 2014 marked as “X/3”. 8. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself as RW2 and her brother Rajeev Kumar tendered his evidence as RW1 in her support. 9. The appellant has stated that the respondent has been staying away from his company since 20th July 2013. According to the appellant, the respondent inflicted various acts of physical and mental torture upon him during the period between 30th April 2013 to 05th June 2013 when she stayed with him at his native place at village Hasuaaha. 9. The appellant has stated that the respondent has been staying away from his company since 20th July 2013. According to the appellant, the respondent inflicted various acts of physical and mental torture upon him during the period between 30th April 2013 to 05th June 2013 when she stayed with him at his native place at village Hasuaaha. He has further pleaded that on 06th June 2013 the respondent came to B.S City at Bokaro with him but there also she started quarrel with his family members and put pressure upon him to bear expenses of her brother and father. The appellant has further pleaded that he took various steps for bringing back his wife to the matrimonial home but she did not agree and threatened him that if her demands are not fulfilled she would lodge a false dowry case against him and his family members. Being apprehensive, the appellant has lodged Informatory Petition No. 19 of 2014 to the SDM, Chas. He has further stated that the respondent along with others came to his house at Bokaro on 11th December 2014, abused him, broke articles and took away his mother's ornaments. For this incident, his brother had to lodge CP Case No. 974 of 2014 in the Court of CJM, Bokaro. 10. The respondent has resisted the divorce case by filing a written statement denying the allegations of torture and harassment on the appellant at her hands stating that the suit is not maintainable either in law or in fact and, that, it was against the spirit of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. She has stated that she is the legally married wife of the appellant and after the marriage she went to her matrimonial home. But she has denied that she demanded the entire salary of her husband and due to that she subjected him and his family members to cruelty. She has further stated that she filed a case of cruelty and maintenance against the appellant and his family members because they inflicted physical and mental cruelty upon her. She has also stated that she was driven out from her matrimonial home after being assaulted and, that the appellant is not providing any maintenance to her. Because the appellant's demand of Scorpio car could not be fulfilled, he assaulted her and tried to take her life by burning her. She has also stated that she was driven out from her matrimonial home after being assaulted and, that the appellant is not providing any maintenance to her. Because the appellant's demand of Scorpio car could not be fulfilled, he assaulted her and tried to take her life by burning her. So, she had filed C.P. Case No. 293/2014 in the Court of C.J.M., Motihari, Bihar, which has been registered as Harsiddhi P.S. Case No. 49/2014 under sections 498-A, 406, 323 & 354 IPC. She has further stated that in the proceeding of the anticipatory bail petition before the Patna High Court the appellant had promised to keep her with him but he filed the suit for divorce against her. 11. In “A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur” (2005) 2 SCC 22 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated what may amount to “cruelty”, as under: “10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful 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, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or 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. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression “cruelty” has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.) 12. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi.) 12. 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 an 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 Section 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.” 12. The Family Court after having considered evidence tendered by the appellant as PW3 and the respondent who examined herself as RW2 came to a finding that it was the appellant who inflicted cruelty upon the respondent and, accordingly, decided the issue no.(iii) against him which was framed on cruelty by the respondent against the appellant. Consequently, the Family Court has held that the appellant has no valid cause of action for filing a petition for divorce and he was not entitled for any relief. 13. On a reading of the judgment under challenge, we gather that both parties have made allegations and counter-allegations of inflicting cruelty upon each other. Consequently, the Family Court has held that the appellant has no valid cause of action for filing a petition for divorce and he was not entitled for any relief. 13. On a reading of the judgment under challenge, we gather that both parties have made allegations and counter-allegations of inflicting cruelty upon each other. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 29th April 2013 and the respondent lodged CP Case No. 293 of 2014 on 12th February 2014 making various allegations about her harassment and demand of dowry. Furthermore, the criminal case lodged by the brother of the appellant vide CP Case No. 974 of 2014 has been dismissed and the respondent and her family members have been acquitted of the criminal charges framed against them. In the cross-examination, the respondent and her brother stood to their grounds as regards demand of Scorpio car and the respondent being turned away from the matrimonial home on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. 14. It has also come on record that the respondent filed a case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, CrPC) vide MP Case No. 71 of 2014 seeking Rs. 15,000/-per month as monthly maintenance. 15. The provision under section 125 CrPC casts a statutory duty on every spouse to maintain other spouse who is unable to maintain herself or himself. Under sub-section 4 of section 125 CrPC, there are restrictions on grant of maintenance to the wife and one of the grounds mentioned therein is that a wife shall not be entitled for maintenance if she has no reasonable cause not to live in the company of her husband. Therefore, an inference can be drawn by the Court in cases where maintenance has been granted to the wife that she has reasonable cause not to live in the company of the husband. A decision in the criminal case is no doubt not binding in a civil proceeding but a finding recorded on an issue must be held binding on the other party [refer, “Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 4 SCC 713 ]. 16. The appellant has failed to establish that his wife is not living in the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 4 SCC 713 ]. 16. The appellant has failed to establish that his wife is not living in the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. We further find that the filing of a criminal case by the respondent and the criminal case lodged by the brother of the appellant having been found false by the Court provided sufficient ground for holding that the appellant has treated his wife with cruelty. We also indicate that the judgment dated 25th January 2019 rendered by the Family Court in Original Suit No. 108 of 2015 is not very satisfactory but we have ourselves examined the original records and gone through the evidence tendered by the parties during the trial and come to a conclusion that the final decision by the Family Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 17. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment dated 25th January 2019 passed in Original Suit No. 108 of 2015. 18. In result, First Appeal No. 82 of 2019 is dismissed.