JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 06/10/2018 passed by Family Court, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.34-A/2017 whereby the application preferred by the husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty and has also deserted the appellant/husband for continuous period of two years prior to filing of the suit, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage in between the parties was solemnized on 29/06/2005 and out of the wedlock two daughters were born. The plaintiff/husband asserted that by concealing the fact that the wife was suffering with schizophrenia, marriage was performed, which resulted into failure in matrimonial obligations by her. Therefore, in order to conceal such disease, the wife started living at her parental home and on other hand false allegations and accusations were clamped on the husband for demand of dowry. 3. The Appellant/husband narrated an incident that in the year 2010, the wife tried to commit suicide by jumping into well and with the intervention of husband and other people she could be saved. The husband further stated that he wanted to take back his wife from Village Mahadevpali but citing some reason or the other, the parents refused to send the wife back. Therefore, the wife has deserted the husband without any lawful cause. The husband further asserted that false allegations of demand of dowry was further made to the police in the year 2015, which resulted into counseling but during counseling too the wife refused to come back and join the company of the husband. Therefore, on these grounds the divorce was sought for. 4. The wife/respondent refuted all the allegations and she denied to have suffering with any mental disorder. She pleaded that demand of Rs.5 Lakhs and motorcycle was made by the husband and their family members. Though the third party intervention of the society was made but their behaviour did not change. In the year 2010 she was abeted to commit suicide and was pushed into the well by the husband, however, she could be saved with great difficulty and thereafter she went back to her parental home and husband refused to keep her back. Though the third party intervention of the society was made but their behaviour did not change. In the year 2010 she was abeted to commit suicide and was pushed into the well by the husband, however, she could be saved with great difficulty and thereafter she went back to her parental home and husband refused to keep her back. She further pleaded that the husband has performed second marriage on 18/10/2015 with another lady namely Kavya @ Kamini, therefore, the suit filed by the appellant/husband on false grounds may be dismissed. 5. Learned Family Court dismissed the suit for divorce and held that neither the husband was treated with cruelty nor the wife was suffering with any mental disorder. With respect to the performance of second marriage, the Court held it in affirmative and dismissed the petition for divorce. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband would submit that the wife imputed false allegations of demand of dowry on the husband and she was suffering with schizophrenia and at the time of marriage this fact was concealed. He would further submit that the evidence would show that she tried to commit suicide and has a suicidal tendency, therefore, it would lead to a mental cruelty. He would further submit that the enquiry report which is placed on record would show that the false report for demand of dowry was alleged by the wife and her family members against the husband and though the allegations were made that the husband has performed a second marriage, but no iota of evidence of facts were placed before the Court to infer such second marriage. He would further submit that the evidence would show that when the husband tried to take back the wife, she refused to join back the company of the husband, therefore, the cruelty and desertion is committed to grant a decree for divorce. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the marriage in between the parties took place in the year 2005 and according to the husband in the year 2017 the mental disorder of wife said to have been disclosed after 12 years, which is impossible. It is stated that the records would show that the wife got into the job and passed out examinations, which would demonstrate the fact that she was not of unsound mind. It is stated that the records would show that the wife got into the job and passed out examinations, which would demonstrate the fact that she was not of unsound mind. He would further submit that during the counseling, this fact was established that the husband has performed the second marriage which would be evident from the statement of Kotwar. Consequently, there was justification for the wife to resist to join company of husband in the presence of second wife. He would further submit that reports were made to the respective police personnel of demand of dowry as such, the ill treatment meted out to her has also been established. He would further submit that under these circumstances, the dismissal of the petition by the learned Family Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and record. 9. The husband has raised a ground that the wife is incurably of unsound mind or suffering intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind, the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with the wife. In order to prove the same, apart from oral statements, documents procured under the Right to Information were placed on record collectively, which was marked as Ex. P/1. In such series of documents, one certificate is produced which shows that Jayanti Goswami was treated for schizophrenia and was admitted in the hospital on 13th of November, 2010 for one month. The said certificate was issued by doctor, however, the doctor has not been examined. The marriage in between the parties took place in the year 2005 and two daughters were also born during such period she got into job and passed out certain examinations. Section 13 (1) (iii) purports that any marriage solemnised, may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. 10. After the marriage in 2005 two children were born i.e. in the year 2008 & 2009. The allegation of schizophrenia has been raised by the husband but degree of mental disorder, nature and kind has not been slated. 10. After the marriage in 2005 two children were born i.e. in the year 2008 & 2009. The allegation of schizophrenia has been raised by the husband but degree of mental disorder, nature and kind has not been slated. Mere branding a spouse as schizophrenic is not sufficient. The degree of mental disorder must be proved. The degree of disorder should be such the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Whereas, in the instant case the birth of two children and living together of husband and wife has superseded those allegations of acute mental disorder which may result into such situation that husband cannot live with wife. Even if the submission of the appellant is accepted that the wife is suffering with mental abnormality, it could not be a sole ground to grant the decree of divorce. For purpose of Sec. 13(1)(iii) Schizophrenia is what Schizophrenia does. Not all Schzophrenics are characterised by the same intensity of the disease. Therefore, the ground to dissolve the marriage on the ground of schizophrenia and its degree having not been established cannot be held in favour of the husband. 11. Now turning back to the other aspect about the mental cruelty. The cruelty as defined by D-TOLSTY in his book The Law and Practice of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (6th Edition Page 61) : Definition of Cruelty:- Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb and health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to reasonable apprehension of a such danger. 12. The shorter oxford dictionary defines cruelty as the quality of being cruel disposition of inflecting, suffering, delight or indifference to another's pain mercilessness, hard heartedness. 13. In Black Law Dictionary (8th Edition 2004) mental cruelty has been defined--As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse. 14. 13. In Black Law Dictionary (8th Edition 2004) mental cruelty has been defined--As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse. 14. The concept of cruelty in Halsbury's Laws of England (Volume 13, 4th Edition Para 1269) :- “The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The Court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarries between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits.” 15. In 24 American jurisprudence, mental cruelty has been defined as under:- “Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct towards one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse.” 16. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse.” 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vinita Saxena v Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778 , has held that in order to evaluate the kind of cruelty the human values, educational standard, individual temperament, etc. as well as the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of the conduct of each case must be considered. 17. The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v 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'. 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 appraisal 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. (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 to day 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. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead 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. 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. 18. In the light of the aforesaid proposition, we will examine the evidence. Husband in his statement states that in the year 2010 wife tried to commit suicide by jumping into well. The said statement is further corroborated by one Om Prakash Giri (PW-2) that in the year 2010 during the festival of Teej she tried to commit suicide by jumping into well. As against this, the submission of wife that in the year 2010 the in-laws abeted her to commit suicide and husband pushed her into well which was in the premises of the in-laws. When she raised voice to save her, she was taken out. The husband further states that after she was rescued from the well, she was treated and thereafter she remained in the company of her parents for three months and thereafter when she recovered from ailment, she was brought back to her matrimonial home. The wife in her cross-examination at para 19 states that she is not aware of the fact that how she was saved from the well but admitted the fact that after she was taken out from the well, at the instance of her husband she was taken to hospital for treatment by her husband and her father was also informed. 19. Though the allegations are made that the husband has pushed her into the well, meaning thereby to kill her, but nothing is on record to appreciate the fact that such act was done by the husband as no police report or any report of such kind is before the Court. The document Ex. D/1 which is a report by the wife to the police DIG is of April, 2017 wherein she states that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and request was made to lodge a report under Section 498-A along with Sections 306, 307, 308, 384 of IPC. The statement of the wife was also recorded which Ex D/2, wherein she states that her husband pushed her into the well which was disclosed to her father. The statement of the wife was also recorded which Ex D/2, wherein she states that her husband pushed her into the well which was disclosed to her father. Whereas the father in his statement (Ex. D/3) states that the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law all abeted the wife to commit suicide to jump into the well. Thereafter, the husband pushed her into the well. He further states that this fact was disclosed by his daughter over a telephone. The incident was of 2010 immediately no report was made. It was after 7 years such disclosure was made that she was pushed into well by husband coupled with the allegation of demand of dowry. While evaluating the statement of correctness, the principle of preponderance of probability of correctness leans in favour of the husband that wife tried to commit suicide by jumping into the well in 2010. The husband alleged that the wife tried to commit suicide because of the mental imbalance. 20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Vs. K. Meena { 2016 (9) SCC 455 } held that threats and attempt to commit suicide by spouse would amount to mental cruelty and analysis of the evidence of this case would show that the wife tried to commit suicide by jumping into well. 21. Now the further allegation comes about making of false report. The husband alleged that the wife has made false report of demand of dowry. The document i.e. part of Ex. P/1 is of 2015 and the counseling report would show that allegations of demand of dowry and about to commit suicide was also made and in such counseling, the wife refused to join back to the company of the husband. The wife made a report to the Station House Officer, Mahasamund in the year 2015, which is part of Ex. P/1 and the enquiry of it would show that during such counseling it was revealed that father of Jayanti, the wife, insisted that the appellant/husband should stay at in-laws place at village Mahadevpali, which was refused by the husband. The insistence of like nature to pressurize the husband to stay at her in-laws place by force would also amount to cruelty. The insistence of like nature to pressurize the husband to stay at her in-laws place by force would also amount to cruelty. Likewise, another enquiry paper of 31/09/2017 conducted by the Station House Officer would reveal that the husband was ready and willing to keep the wife but as a counter on inflated grounds the reports were made against the husband for demand of dowry and on enquiry it was found that no offence was committed by the husband. 22. Lodging of false report of leveling disgusting accusation including the marriage with another lady destroying the marital ties would also lead to cruelty along with the fact that the accusation of false allegations of demand of dowry would also tarnish the image. The Supreme Court in the matter of Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar { (2021) 3 SCC 742 } has held that 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. Therefore, the broken relationship cannot be described as normal wear and tear of middle class married life. 23. Applying the aforesaid analogy in the facts & evidence of this case, we are of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned family Court requires interference. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the marriage dated 29/06/2005 is dissolved. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no alimony has been fixed, therefore, alimony may be fixed in this case. 25. As far as, grant of alimony is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/husband would submit that the appellant has no means to pay and is a priest. No affidavit or any document of like nature has been filed to substantiate the income and to show the property in hold and the level of income but simplicitor the submission of the appellant cannot be accepted that he has no means to pay, therefore, he will not be able to pay any maintenance to the wife. Considering the present inflation and circumstance and the fact that respondent has two daughters, we deem it appropriate that Rs.15,000/- per month to be paid by way of maintenance to the wife henceforth as a permanent alimony. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 27. A decree be drawn accordingly.