JUDGMENT : 1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the original Petitioner – Husband challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2003 dated 01/09/2005. The Husband filed Petition vide H.M.P. No. 88/2001 dated 26/09/2003 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola decreed the said Petition and dissolved the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent therein. While deciding the Petition, it was held by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division that the Petitioner therein proved that the Respondent, during her stay at matrimonial house, treated the Petitioner with great cruelty, mental torture and agony. The Respondent – Wife filed Appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2003 which came to be allowed and the decree of dissolution of marriage came to be set aside by the Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court answered the point that the Appellant therein i.e. Chitra actually was treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws and they made false allegations against her. Another ground for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Court was that there was criminal Proceeding initiated by the Wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was pending. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. Counsel for the Respondent is absent. 3. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court vide order dated 11/01/2008 read thus:- “(A) Whether the first Appellate Court was wrong in holding that there was no cruelty? (B) Whether there has been complete breakdown of the marriage on account of the fact that for the last more than ten years, parties have been residing separately?” 4. There is no dispute that the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent took place on 27/05/1996. After the marriage, the Respondent – Wife started residing at Akola at her matrimonial house which was consisting of her husband, her brother-in-law and mother-in-law. The mother-in-law of the Respondent was physically handicap and was not in a position to perform the day-to-day activities without the assistance of others. Since the marriage, the Respondent – Wife was picking up quarrel with the Appellant’s younger brother and mother. She was not in a position to understand the day-to-day activities and to discharge the matrimonial affairs. The mother-in-law of the Respondent was physically handicap and was not in a position to perform the day-to-day activities without the assistance of others. Since the marriage, the Respondent – Wife was picking up quarrel with the Appellant’s younger brother and mother. She was not in a position to understand the day-to-day activities and to discharge the matrimonial affairs. She also gave threat to commit suicide and to implicate the Appellant and his family members in a false case. 5. My attention was drawn by learned Counsel for the Appellant to the cross-examination of the Respondent – Wife. She has admitted in the cross that her mother-in-law was physically handicap and her mother-in-law used to carry out the household works such as cooking and cleaning. She also further admitted that Manish (Husband) used to leave at 8:00 am for his duty and his mother used to prepare his tiffin. She has further admitted that 3 months after the marriage, her father came to fetch her. She has not taken any treatment from the Doctor after she returned to her parental house. She has further admitted that after returning to her parental house, she stayed there for about 4 years. In that period, she has not issued any notice for resuming their marital life. After meeting of the relatives, her father reached her to her matrimonial house. She has not filed any Complaint during the period of 4 years against her husband or mother-in-law. She further admitted that on 28/12/2000 after 4 years, she returned back to her matrimonial house. She also admitted that the Appellant and his family members used to say that she cannot carry out the household works properly and used to explain her as to how to carry out the household works properly. She further admitted that on 12/01/2001, her husband Manish took her to the house of her cousin Dilip Nagrechar. Since then, she has not issued any notice for restitution of conjugal rights. From this cross-examination, it clearly appears that the Respondent stayed at her matrimonial house hardly for 3-4 months and resided for 4 years at her parental house. Not only this, though there was no case made out for any demand of dowry or cruelty, she has filed false Complaint against her husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. From this cross-examination, it clearly appears that the Respondent stayed at her matrimonial house hardly for 3-4 months and resided for 4 years at her parental house. Not only this, though there was no case made out for any demand of dowry or cruelty, she has filed false Complaint against her husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the said Proceedings are also disposed of acquitting the present Appellant. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas vs. K. Sunita reported in 2014 (16) SCC 34 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Respondent – Wife had filed a false criminal Complaint and even one such Complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nitin Ramesh Dhiwar vs. Roopali Nitin Dhiwar reported in 2012 (6) Mh.L.J. 461 wherein this Court held that filing of a false criminal Complaint itself amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in 2020 (18) SCC 247 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “it is true it is open for anyone to file Complaint or lodge Prosecution for lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a First Information Report for an offence also and mere lodging of Complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the Wife against the Husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the Husband. As per pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14/08/2005, they lived together only 18 months and thereafter they are separately living for more than a decade now”. It is further held that the Appellant has made out a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. It is further held that the Appellant has made out a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground as mentioned in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. In the present matter also, the Respondent – Wife hardly stayed at her matrimonial house for 3 months and admitted in the cross-examination that her mother-in-law used to carry out the household works and she also admitted that she is not served with any notice for restitution of conjugal rights or made any attempt to resume cohabitation. Even in the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in R.C.C. No. 360/2001, it is specifically observed that Respondent – Wife has neither made any reference of demand of Rs. 20,000/- in the First Information Report nor any Complaint is filed. After going through the evidence, the learned Magistrate specifically observed that the Complainant – Chitra has given different statements at different times. The Prosecution miserably failed to prove that the Accused – Husband has committed any offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the Appellant herein. 8. In view of all these backgrounds, I am satisfied that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be confirmed. The Appellate Court has not considered any of the admissions given by the Wife – Chitra while coming to the conclusion that the Wife had suffered cruelty. Since the Respondent – Wife reached to the house of Dilip Nagrechar i.e. January, 2001, the Appellant and the Respondent are residing separately. As such, the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent is irretrievably broken. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law (A) and (B) are answered in the affirmative. 9. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) Second Appeal is allowed. (b) The judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 276/2003 dated 01/09/2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. (c) The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola in HMP No. 88/2001 dated 26/09/2003 is hereby confirmed. (d) Decree be drawn up accordingly. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.