JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 13/02/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G., whereby the application filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized in between the parties on 12/05/2009 at village Lachchanpur, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. and out of the wedlock a child was born. The husband made averments that he was working as Teacher and whenever he used to come late, the wife raised suspicion on his character and further she failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations apart from the fact it was stated that the physical appearance of the husband was also targeted to be ugly. The husband further stated that false allegations were leveled for demand of dowry against him and entire family members. It is further averred that the wife tried to commit suicide and also used to extend threat to commit suicide. Making allegation that on 28/06/2013, the wife called the members from her parental home; extended threat; and lastly on 03/07/2013 a report was made under Section 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the mids of that, certain compromise was arrived at, but the wife continued her aggressive behaviour to extend threat to commit suicide and extended further threat to kill the child by consuming some insecticide poison. On these different grounds the divorce was sought for. 3. In response to the averments made by the husband, the wife stated that the husband has an illicit relation with a lady outside the marriage and further she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) was demanded by way of dowry. The wife further stated that after birth of child certain compromise took place in between them but eventually it did not last. Further a report was made under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC against the husband and the family members. She further stated that she was forced to leave the matrimonial house by husband and on false grounds the divorce is sought for. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. 4. Further a report was made under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC against the husband and the family members. She further stated that she was forced to leave the matrimonial house by husband and on false grounds the divorce is sought for. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the husband four witnesses were examined and the wife examined three witnesses including herself. Learned Family Court after evaluating the evidence dismissed the application filed by the husband seeking divorce. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the wife has made false allegations and even the character assassination was made by leveling allegation of illicit relation with a lady outside the marriage in her written-statement, which itself amounts to cruelty. He would further submit that on a report made by the wife the entire family of the husband went through the trial which ultimately resulted into acquittal. He would therefore, submit that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani { (2020)18 SCC 247 } this would itself would amount to cruelty. He would further submit that the husband and wife are living separately for the last more than 10 years, therefore, under the circumstances the decree of divorce may be granted. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the respondent was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and evidence. 8. In the divorce petition predominantly on the ground that the husband was subjected to mental cruelty for the reason that whenever the husband used to come late the wife used to doubt the character of husband. The averment further is that the wife failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations and used to abuse in-laws and the family members of husband and it is stated that she further used to extend threat to commit suicide. The allegations further contained the fact that the threat was extended to the extent that the entire family would be inculpated in a criminal case for demand of dowry. The allegations further contained the fact that the threat was extended to the extent that the entire family would be inculpated in a criminal case for demand of dowry. The further averments are that the mother of the husband was also physically assaulted by the wife. It was further pleaded that the kerosene oil was poured on the child and threat was extended to kill the child and to commit suicide, thereby caused mental cruelty. 9. In reply to the averments made by the husband, the wife denied the allegations instead it was pleaded that the husband is an alcoholic and characterless person. It is further stated that before the marriage itself the husband was having physical relation with a lady and the same continued even after marriage. She further stated that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) was demanded and the same having not been fulfilled, she was mentally and physically tortured and while she was carrying pregnancy she was left alone to go to her parental home. The allegation of extending threat of committing suicide on different occasions was denied. 10. Reading of the averments made by the wife, in reply to the allegations, the extramarital relation outside the marriage is been stated. The question arises for consideration as to such accusation and character assassination by the wife in the written statement whether would constitute a mental cruelty or not for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955. This issue was dealt by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate Versus Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate { (2003) 6 SCC 334 } wherein it was held that leveling 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 other party. The Court further held that Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated 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. The Court further held that Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated 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. 11. Apart from the said averments in the written-statement in the crossexamination on behalf of the wife, the extramarital relation with a named lady was suggested, however, it was denied by the husband. Reading of the cross-examination further would show that the degree of suggestion that his brothers have entered into scuffle with such lady because of the alleged illicit relation was made. The lady who was named to have an extramarital relation was also examined, she has also strongly denied such allegations. The document which is on record about the recording of the counseling in between the parties shows that the allegations were made by the non-applicant/wife that the husband character is not good. Except the bald allegations of such extramarital relation, nothing on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, in written-statement and during cross-examination character of wife was under attack. 12. This analogy finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra Vs. K.Meena { (2016) 9 SCC 455 } 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 having been 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: (SCCp. 239, para 7) : “7. 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: (SCCp. 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 byway 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. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to there formulated 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 bed angerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” Therefore, the overall cluster of evidence which leads to assassinating the character of husband at the behest of wife would show that without any substance or any evidence of remote nature to draw an inference, the wife leveled the allegations to assassinate the character, which would naturally be quite torturous for a person, therefore, may lead to a mental cruelty. 13. 13. The allegations further are that the report was made by the wife on false grounds that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry. The certified copy of the order of acquittal dated 23/12/2015 of a criminal case No.426/2013 is on record and such acquittal is admitted by the wife at para 22 of her cross-examination. Perusal of such certified copy of the judgment shows that apart from the appellant, his mother and father have also faced the trial. Perusal of the order also shows that the evaluation of the evidence for acquittal was on the merits and the judicial magistrate found that no offence is made out. Therefore, the facts of this case certainly would lead to show that entire family members of the appellant/husband passed through the agony of trail before the acquittal. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani { (2020) 18 SCC 247 } held that when the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC, making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal, it would lead to a cruelty. The Supreme Court in para 13 of the said judgment has observed thus in para 13:- 13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC making serious allegations in which the appellant had to undergo trial which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. In the prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC not only acquittal has been recorded but observations have been made that allegations of serious nature are levelled against each other. The case set up by the appellant seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been established. With regard to proceeding initiated by respondent under Section 498-A of IPC, the High Court made following observation in paragraph 15: 15.....Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, they cannot be said to be valid grounds for holding that such a recourse adopted by the respondent amounts to cruelty." 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the order of the learned Family Court requires inference and the appellant/husband is entitled to get a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Accordingly, we order that the marriage dated 12/05/2009 solemnized in between the parties shall be dissolved by a decree of divorce. 16. Now coming to the grant of alimony to the respondent-wife. During the course of submission, it is stated that when the counseling took place, it was admitted by the husband that at present he is getting a salary of Rs.35000/- per month. 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.10,000/- per month from the appellant towards maintenance which would be deducted at source from the salary of the appellant. It is made clear that as and when the salary is reciprocally increased, subsequently the amount of maintenance shall also be increased proportionally to the extent of increase in future salary. 17. 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. 18. A decree be drawn to the above extent.