JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Family Court Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.28-A/2016 whereby the petition filed by the husband seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. Hence this appeal by the husband. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the parties got married on 31.03.2006 at Khairagarh on 31.03.2006 and out of the wedlock, two children i.e., daughter Sakshi and son Tejas were born on 14.4.2007 and 24.10.2011 respectively. The husband alleged that after a 8 to 10 days of marriage, the behaviour of the wife towards family members became hostile and she expressed her desire to go to her parental place. Immediately after the marriage, 4 letters were received by post on different dates during April-May, 2006. According such letter, the sender stated that he had relations with the respondent-wife before her marriage and when the matter was enquired by the family members, it was revealed that the wife earlier had relations with one person Sudhir Golcha and after intervention of family members, it was assured that it would not be repeated in future. The husband came out of such trauma and continued his marital life. It is further stated that when the wife could not adjust herself with the family members, they shifted from Nagri to Raipur but the wife did not mend her conduct as she used to vandalise things by breaking mobile, T.V. Remote etc and by throwing away the domestic utensils. The husband further states that due to mental imbalance the wife has consumed BSC powder to commit suicide. Therefore, she was admitted in hospital in June, 2009 and was discharged after two days and after coming back, they started living at Dhamtari. It is further stated that the respondent wife and her father Ghevarchand Kothari tortured the husband to the highest extent which led to filing a report in Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari on 28.09.2013. However, the reported matter being not cognizable under section 155 Cr.P.C., nothing transpired. Subsequently, similar report was made on 12.06.2015 but that too was of no consequence. Thereafter, the wife left the company of the husband and started living apart since March 2016. However, the reported matter being not cognizable under section 155 Cr.P.C., nothing transpired. Subsequently, similar report was made on 12.06.2015 but that too was of no consequence. Thereafter, the wife left the company of the husband and started living apart since March 2016. The husband further stated that on trivial matters, the wife did not give food to him and children and used to hurl abuses on them. The wife further used to suspect the character of the husband and clamped charges of illicit relations with other girls and neighbour’s women. The husband further alleged that in marriage ceremonies or at public functions, she used to insult and loudly shout at him. The husband further stated that he was dealing in transport business in forest department, due to which, no time limit was fixed for coming and going to home and the wife unnecessarily suspecting him and used to insult and humiliate the staff of Forest Department by contacting them by Phone which also tarnished his image and despite the advice to mend her behaviour, the wife did not improve and threat was extended that he would be inculpated in a false case. Therefore, on these grounds decree of divorce was sought for. 3. The wife in her written statement denied adverse allegations and stated that she had no relation with any other person whatsoever and false allegations were levelled by the husband. She further stated that without her knowledge, she was made to consume BSC powder and when she became sick, out of fear, she was got admitted in the hospital. She further stated that she has not made any report to the Police whereas on false ground, the husband has lodged the report. The wife further stated that because of the fact the husband refused to keep the wife, the father of wife took her away on 21.03.2016 along with children to Khairagarh and since then she was residing there. She further states that on false allegations, the decree of divorce is sought for. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court Court framed 5 issues and held that neither any cruelty nor desertion is proved and the wife has not attempted to commit suicide by consuming BSC powder and thus dismissed the divorce petition. Hence this appeal. 5. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court Court framed 5 issues and held that neither any cruelty nor desertion is proved and the wife has not attempted to commit suicide by consuming BSC powder and thus dismissed the divorce petition. Hence this appeal. 5. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Archi Agrawal, Chetan Singh Chauhan Advocates would submit that the learned trial Court has completely misjudged the issue of cruelty. She would further submit that despite the letters received by the husband, the Family tried to save the marriage but the wife did not improve her conduct and eventually a report was made. Referring to the statement of P.W.1, the husband she would submit that the wife herself has deserted on account of her extra-marital affairs and false allegations were made against the husband. She further refers to the police report and would submit that on different occasions, the husband made police reports about the abnormal behaviour of the wife but since it was a non-cognizable offence, no heed was paid. She further submits that admittedly, the wife tried to commit suicide and the said act of the wife would amount to cruelty. She refers to a case law reported in (2016) 9 SCC 455 (Narendra Vs. K. Meena) and would submit that threats and attempt to commit suicide would amount to cruelty. It is further submitted that a perusal of the statement of witnesses would lead to show the conduct of cruelty committed by the wife including the character assassination of the husband. She also refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 (Para 30) and submits that the relation between the parties has led to unbridgeable distance and therefore, even refusal by the Court to sever marital tie can constitute mental cruelty. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court be set aside and decree of divorce be granted to the husband. 6. Per contra, Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-wife would submit that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is well merited. He would submit that according to the case of appellant, the desertion took place on 21.03.2016 whereas the petition for divorce was filed on 21.04.2016. 6. Per contra, Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-wife would submit that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is well merited. He would submit that according to the case of appellant, the desertion took place on 21.03.2016 whereas the petition for divorce was filed on 21.04.2016. Consequently no decree of divorce can be granted u/s 13(1)(i-b) which requires that desertion should be continued for a continuous period of not less than two years preceding the presentation of the petition. He would further submit that the statement of the husband itself would show that he was keeping the relation alive and even during birth day of her daughter, he went to the place of wife and had a physical relation. He would further submit that so far as allegation of consumption of ants killing powder to commit suicide was in the year 2009 and thereafter the child was born in 2011 and that it cannot be taken into account. Consequently the judgment of the Court below is well merited. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the evidence on record. 8. According to the appellant husband, immediately after the marriage, the family received letters which are marked as Ex.P-1, P-3 & P-5. The letter discloses about the physical relation of the wife with some other boy before the marriage. No date is shown in Envelopes Ex.P-2 & P-4. On envelop Ex.P-6, the date of 25.04.2006 is shown. The other letters are undated and the author is not known. The letter dated 05.05.2006 envelop (Ex.P-8) addressed to Subhash Ji Nahta (father of appellant) also reveals allegation of extra marital affair on the respondent. The appellant husband has placed reliance on these letters but except the presumption, no inference can be drawn by such letters. Two letters were sent by courier but those persons have not been examined to ascertain the fact as to by whom the letters were sent. 9. The appellant husband has placed reliance on these letters but except the presumption, no inference can be drawn by such letters. Two letters were sent by courier but those persons have not been examined to ascertain the fact as to by whom the letters were sent. 9. Now coming back to the statement of husband, he stated that on the date of marriage, he came to know through relatives that his wife had relation with one Sudhir Golcha and since the plaintiff’s family received letters after the marriage he enquired through their relatives who are residents of Chuikadan, thereafter they met the said person Sudhir Golcha of the same place who had shown them love letters written by the wife to him. The husband further stated that even after the marriage, Sudhir Golcha used to call his wife and thereafter, he along with his father Subhash Chand and uncle Shantilal went to the place of father-in-law i.e., Khairagarh and a meeting was convened there between such family members wherein the father of girl admitted the relation of Sudhir with the girl. Then his father and uncle made it clear to the family members of wife that there should be no such relation with Sudhir and thereafter the plaintiff started living with the wife. The husband further stated that in the month of July-August, 2006, the wife used to create panic situation in the house by breaking the household goods. Thereafter, they shifted from Nagari to Raipur and while he was at Raipur, in 2008 the respondent wife tried to commit suicide by consuming the ants killing powder and she was admitted in Ramakrishna Hospital, Raipur. 10. The wife as against such allegation of attempt to commit suicide, at para 6 states that she maintains sound health, and does not have any mental illness and mental imbalance, nor she had ever tried to commit suicide, but without her knowledge, the plaintiff made her to drink a mixture of ants killing powder and assaulted her. She further states that the plaintiff and his family made a story that she herself had consumed the ants killing powder and when she tried to make a police complaint, the plaintiff and his family admitted their guilt and asked pardon. She further states that the plaintiff and his family made a story that she herself had consumed the ants killing powder and when she tried to make a police complaint, the plaintiff and his family admitted their guilt and asked pardon. However, this fact was denied by her at para 18 of her cross examination wherein a contradictory statement was made by her that she herself consumed ants killing powder, therefore, she was admitted in Ramakrishna Hospital wherein she stayed for two days. The father of the girl (D.W.2) stated that no report was made that the family members of the husband administered the poison and no social meeting was convened. 11. The Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. K. Meena (2016) 9 SCC 455 held that threats and attempt to commit suicide would amount to mental cruelty. An analysis of evidence would show that the wife tried to commit suicide by consuming poison, for which, she was admitted to hospital. It is obvious that if such events happen in marital life, then the incidents of threat or attempts to commit suicide would continue to loom large for all the time to come and it is obvious that other party to the marriage would be cornered by such acts whereby the natural relations would automatically be derailed. 12. The further evidence of husband would show that reports were made by the husband on 28.09.2013 (Ex.P-11) and 12.06.2015 Ex.P-10 which purport that threat was given to the husband that their family would be implicated in a dowry case. Perusal of the contents of both the reports Ex.P-12 & P-13 would lead to show that he was being threatened by the father-in-law and wife. Further examination of the statement of P.W.1 would show at para 18, a suggestion was given at the best of wife in cross examination that the husband was caught red handed with a lady police having relations and two children were born to them. Certainly this type of accusation and character assassination when was suggested to the husband at the behest of the wife, it would constitute a mental cruelty. This analogy finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. Certainly this type of accusation and character assassination when was suggested to the husband at the behest of the wife, it would constitute a mental cruelty. This analogy finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. K. Meena (Supra) wherein the principles laid down in Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334 was reiterated to hold that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as also the health of other spouse. Therefore, in the instant case, such allegations made in the written statement and the suggestion made in cross examination about the character of husband would satisfy the requirement of law to hold that it would amount to mental cruelty. Para 17 of the said decision is relevant and quoted below : 17. This Court in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334 has held as under: (SCC p. 239, para 7) : “7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra-marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of the perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an education Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” 13. Further perusal of the statement of the wife shows that it is stated that in the January 2016 the husband harassed her and denied to keep her, due to which she had to live separately. Thereafter the plaintiff used to establish relationship by assuring her to keep with him again and she used to live with the plaintiff in Amaltaspuram where her father came on 21.03.2016 from Khairagarh and took her and children with him to Khairagarh and locked the house as the plaintiff visited her only once or twice since January 2016. The petition for divorce was filed in the month of April, 2016. In order to create a ground to get decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, the desertion should continue for a period not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of petition. Therefore, we do not find any ground to make out the ground of desertion. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the husband appellant was able to prove the case that he was subjected to mental cruelty. 14. The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Versus Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 has indicated the illustrative cases wherein the inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para 101 is relevant and quoted below : “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. Para 101 is relevant and quoted below : “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive : (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appriasal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-today life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-today life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded 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, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 15. Further in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742 the Supreme Court held when the reputation of the spouse is damaged amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party. The Court also held that the High Court was in error in describing the broken relationship as normal wear and tear of middle class married life and the marriage was dissolved. 16. The Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) (1994) 1 SCC 33 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. 17. In view of the over all analysis of evidence and applying the aforesaid position of law to present facts situation of the case, we are of the considered view that cruelty has been meted out to the husband by such conduct of wife, therefore, the decree of divorce can be granted in favour of the appellant-husband. 18. Now coming to the grant of alimony to the respondent-wife, it is stated by the counsel for the respondent-wife that the husband has sufficient means of income as he is dealing in timber business whereas the respondent is merely a house maker having no source of income and both the children are with her. The concept of maintenance grant is to ensure that the wife and the children of the husband are not left in a state of destitution after the divorce. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in order to ameliorate the financial position of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; grant of maintenance is a means to secure the woman's sustenance, along with that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and he cannot escape from his moral and familial responsibilities even after divorce. No affidavits have been placed on record by the parties to show the details of property/income except the oral submission for maintenance. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, we are inclined to hold that the wife is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- per month from the appellant towards maintenance. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to pay a regular monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the wife. 19. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the court below. Consequently the marriage held between the parties is dissolved. A decree be drawn to the above extent.