JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The judgment in Original Suit No.243 of 2013 (in short, “Divorce Suit”) has been challenged by the husband of Sweta Kumari by filing the present First Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 2. The Additional Family Court Judge at Ranchi has dismissed the aforementioned Divorce Suit instituted by Prahalad Prasad, the appellant, under section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage solemnized with Sweta Kumari on 23rd June 2012 before the Marriage Registrar at Ranchi. 3. The appellant has pleaded that on 12th February 2012 his parents visited the house of the respondent and finalized his marriage with the girl who was shown to them by the parents of the respondent. But on 17th February 2012 a different girl was presented with whom the engagement ceremony was performed. According to him, he did not raise any objection at that time as many friends and relatives were invited on that occasion. Later on, when he started making enquiries the respondent and her parents threatened to implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases if he refused to marry the respondent. The appellant has further pleaded that to put pressure on him and his parents a false criminal case was lodged vide Doranda (Argora) PS Case No. 133 of 2012 on 25th March 2012 under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, a false allegation of attempt to rape under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the said case to put further pressure on him to agree for the marriage with the respondent. However, the charge under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against him was quashed by the Jharkhand High Court by an order dated 9th May 2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2014. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed on 25th July 2014. The criminal proceeding against his brother in the said case was also quashed by the Jharkhand High Court by an order dated 28th January 2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2014. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed on 25th July 2014. The criminal proceeding against his brother in the said case was also quashed by the Jharkhand High Court by an order dated 28th January 2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2014. In the meantime, the respondent gave another complaint to the police making allegation against him and his family members of demanding Rs.2.5 Lakhs as legal expenses and Rs.10 Lakhs as dowry on the basis of which Jagarnathpur (Pundag) PS Case No.293 of 2014 was registered under sections 498-A, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In that case, after the investigation the police submitted Final Form but the respondent did not stop there and filed a protest petition which is still pending in the Court. 4. This is also pleaded by the appellant that after the marriage the respondent started quarreling with and abusing his parents and put pressure on him to live separately from them. On 29th July 2012 when he came back from Barh, the respondent started shouting at and abusing him in filthy language and again pressurized him to get separated from the parents. The appellant has further pleaded that the respondent threatened to implicate him in a case by attempting to commit suicide if he did not heed to her demands and agree to stay in the house of her parents at Ranchi. He therefore requested the parents of the respondent to reason with her. But, on the contrary, the mother and maternal uncle of the respondent came the next day and took the respondent with them along with all her belongings including her streedhan. The appellant has also made allegation that the respondent and her parents threatened him to pay Rs.15 Lakhs or to take VRS and claim his share in the property and start a business. On 27th August 2012, the respondent along with her parents, maternal uncle and 5-6 unknown persons forcibly entered his house, started abusing him and his family members and assaulted him with fists and kicks. Constrained, he lodged a complaint case being C-1606 of 2012 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in which summons has been issued against them. 5. Constrained, he lodged a complaint case being C-1606 of 2012 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in which summons has been issued against them. 5. The respondent has contested the Divorce Suit by filing a written statement denying the aforementioned allegations made by the appellant. She has pleaded that with the help of a common family friend negotiation for marriage took place and having been satisfied about the education, behavior and physical appearance etc. of the respondent the parents of the appellant settled the marriage. She has denied the allegations of impersonation and engagement with a different girl, and stated that the appellant met her personally before the marriage. She has further pleaded that at the time of finalization of marriage Rs.51,000/-was paid on 12th February 2012 to the parents of the appellant and Rs.6 Lakhs was paid on 16th February 2012 before the engagement which was performed in presence of the friends, family members and other relatives of both the parties. According to the respondent, after the engagement on 17th February 2012 the appellant sent a message on her mobile phone in the evening and expressed his eagerness to meet her, and the next day the appellant came to her parent’s place and asked for sexual favors which she promptly refused whereupon the appellant became angry and threatened to break the engagement. She has further pleaded that inspite of all counsels the appellant refused to marry her and therefore she was constrained to lodge a complaint with the local police on the basis of which Doranda (Argora) PS Case No.133 of 2012 was registered under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, ignoring the misdeeds of the appellant she agreed to settle the dispute with intervention of the Court and on the basis of the compromise the appellant and his parents were admitted to bail. But just 2 days after the marriage, the appellant and his family members started demanding dowry of Rs. 10 Lakhs and when she raised objection the brother of the appellant badly assaulted her. She has further pleaded that the appellant left her at Ranchi on the pretext of arranging an accommodation and when he came back on 29th July 2012 all of them mercilessly beaten her and his brother attacked her with knife. When she raised hulla the neighbors gathered there and warned the appellant and his family members. She has further pleaded that the appellant left her at Ranchi on the pretext of arranging an accommodation and when he came back on 29th July 2012 all of them mercilessly beaten her and his brother attacked her with knife. When she raised hulla the neighbors gathered there and warned the appellant and his family members. According to the respondent, it was in this background that her mother visited her the next morning and asked for bidia but the appellant and his family members refused and, that, it was only when her mother threatened to call the police they permitted her to go along with her. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Additional Family Court for trial: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the petitioner has sufficient cause of action to file the suit? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent? (iv) Whether petitioner has caused cruelty to the respondent? (v) Whether petitioner is trying to take unfair advantage of his own fault? (vi) What relief/ reliefs the petitioner is entitled to get? 7. During the trial, the appellant examined himself as PW3 and brought 3 more witnesses to corroborate the story of cruelty by his wife. To prove his case, he has laid in evidence the following documents: (i) Ext.1 Certified copy of FIR of Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 133/12 dated 25.03.2012 (ii) Ext.2 Certified copy of charge sheet of Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 133/12 dated 30.06.2012 (iii) Ext.3 Certified copy of order of Cr. Revision No. 116/14 dt. 28.01.15 (iv) Ext.4 Certified copy of order of Cr. Revision No. 123/14 with I.A. No.2639/14 dated 09.05.2014 (v) Ext.5 Certified copy of summoning order dated 18.09.14 passed in Complaint Case No. 1606/12 (vi) Ext.6 Certified copy of petition for cancellation of bail filed on behalf informant dated 15.05.2013 (vii) Ext.7 Certified copy of order dt. 03.10.2013 passed in S.T. No. 528/2013 (viii) Ext.8 Certified copy of FIR of Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.293/2014 dated 06.09.2014 (ix) Ext.9 Certified copy of Final Form submitted in Jagarnathpur (Pundag) Case No. 293/2014 dated 03.07.2015 showing lack of evidence. (x) Ext.10 Medical fitness certificate dated 30.07.2012 with objection 8. 03.10.2013 passed in S.T. No. 528/2013 (viii) Ext.8 Certified copy of FIR of Jagarnathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No.293/2014 dated 06.09.2014 (ix) Ext.9 Certified copy of Final Form submitted in Jagarnathpur (Pundag) Case No. 293/2014 dated 03.07.2015 showing lack of evidence. (x) Ext.10 Medical fitness certificate dated 30.07.2012 with objection 8. On behalf of the respondent, four witnesses including her parents were examined to oppose the Divorce Suit. 9. Besides the oral evidence, the following documents have been produced on behalf of the respondent to demonstrate that she was treated badly in her matrimonial home: (i) Ext. A to Ext. A/11 Photographs (ii) Ext. B Photocopy of mutual agreement (iii) Ext. C Certified copy of order dated 04.06.2012 passed in GR No. 1568/2012 with objection (iv) Ext. D Certified copy of order dated 02.02.2018 passed in C-2241/2015 with objection (v) Ext. E Medical prescription dated 30.07.2012 with objection. 10. According to the appellant, a fraud was played by the parents of the respondent who presented a different girl for engagement with him. The engagement ceremony was therefore marred with squabbles and when he refused to marry the respondent a false complaint was lodged with the police. The trial Judge held that the appellant has failed to disclose name of the persons who were present on the said occasion and did not produce his mother as a witness who would have spoken the truth and, moreover, RW4 Satendra Prasad has categorically stated that during the negotiation a photograph of the respondent was given by her parents and the appellant had consented for his engagement with her. On appreciation of the evidence laid by the parties, the trial Judge has held that the appellant's consent for marriage can be inferred from the proceedings before the Marriage Registrar before whom the marriage was registered on 26th March 2012 and the story of changing the bride at the time of engagement is not believable. The trial Judge has further held that the respondent who stayed with her husband for 3 days only could not have inflicted cruelty upon the appellant and even assuming that the appellant had a quarrel with the respondent regarding her misbehavior with his parents was an isolated event. As regards filing of criminal cases, the trial Judge has held that if the aggrieved person takes recourse to law that action does not fall under the definition of cruelty. As regards filing of criminal cases, the trial Judge has held that if the aggrieved person takes recourse to law that action does not fall under the definition of cruelty. Having regard to the evidence tendered by both sides, the trial Judge has held that the conduct of the appellant in sleeping separately from his wife in a different room, his statement that he never accepted his marriage with the respondent, leaving her at Ranchi 3 days after the marriage and thereafter having no communication with his wife are the acts of cruelty heaped upon the respondent. 11. The Additional Family Court has examined the matter in the following manner: “16. On perusal of material available in record it appears that Issue Nos.(iii) & (v) are vital are vital and connected issues hence they are taken up together for determination on the score of evidence available on record. On perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner husband has placed three main facts on which he was praying for relief of divorce; (a) The first plea of the petitioner is that prior to his engagement one another girl was presented before his parents and on the engagement day she was changed and when this fact was agitated by the petitioner and his parents the respondent and her family members denied the fact and compelled him to marry with the respondent by lodging false and frivolous cases. He pleaded that he had never voluntarily accepted or consented to the said marriage. (b) The second plea of the petitioner is that after their marriage the respondent wife lived with the petitioner only for three days at their matrimonial home at Ranchi and after then the petitioner returned back to his job at Barh, Bihar leaving behind his wife at her matrimonial home at Ranchi, where she was continued to live with petitioner's parents for a period of more than one month and in the said period in absence of the petitioner she misbehaved with his parents, used abusive words against them and lower their respect and dignity before their society and neighbourhood. (c) The third plea of the petitioner is that he was subjected to cruelty by the respondent by lodging several false and frivolous cases against him and due to which he seriously suffered not only mentally and physically but also financially. (c) The third plea of the petitioner is that he was subjected to cruelty by the respondent by lodging several false and frivolous cases against him and due to which he seriously suffered not only mentally and physically but also financially. As far as the first plea of the petitioner is concerned, after going through the material on record and evidences adduced from both the sides it appears to this court that the petitioner himself admitted the fact that on the very first day only his parents visited to the place of respondent to see her and that prior to their engagement but surprisingly enough out of two only father appeared before the court to adduce his evidence and for the reason best known to the petitioner he failed to produce his mother who is one of the prime witness of this fact. Basically the genesis of the dispute as per the petitioner's case is of replacing of the bride but on this point, out of admitted two eye witnesses only one has been produced from the side of the petitioner and even he failed to explain meticulously the entire events of the said date he failed to mention the name of the persons present on the said date when the girl was first time presented before them and further the petitioner failed to produce his mother who is the another eye witness of this fact and hence it creates serious doubt on the statement of the petitioner in this regard and the doubt further reinforced and gained ground when examined in the light of evidences adduced by the respondent and her witnesses wherein they categorically stated that nothing as such happened. The prime and independent witness of the fact is none other than the person who admittedly negotiated the marriage and in his evidence this witness Satyendra Prasad categorically stated in his evidence that on the very first day he along with the parents of Respondent visited the residence of the petitioner to negotiate their marriage there they provided the photograph of the respondent to them and only after being satisfied from the said photograph they became ready to see the girl at her residence and thereafter they met the girl at her residence expressed their liking and then being satisfied the date for their engagement got fixed. On the said date they also agreed on the amount of dowry to be paid by the respondent side to that of the petitioner. This witness categorically stated that in both the day the petitioner was present and was participated in the negotiation and consented for his engagement. This witness further stated that apart from the petitioner and his parents two more persons visited the residence of respondent to see her. On perusal of the statement of this witness it appears that this witness has narrated the event in much natural and lucid manner than to the petitioner. The sequence explained by the witness is more close in the ordinary course of such event. The process narrated by this witness appears to be more realistic and accepted course in like event. In marriage negotiation ordinarily prior to meeting with the bride the groom got satisfied from her photograph and then only they used to see the girl and in that event in ordinary practice groom remain present being the prime party to see the bride for his satisfaction. It is also true that negotiation on dowry comes after the parties saw and met to each other being satisfied from each other and then only the date of engagement be fixed. Hence, the statement of the witness is far much realistic and natural to that of the petitioner who has tried to introduce alien and strange practices in his statement like denying of viewing the photograph of the respondent, his own absence from the entire marriage negotiation. Accordingly, after appreciating evidences adduced from both the side it appears to this court that the present plea of the petitioners failed to stand. It is neither reliable nor believable and contrary to established practices and rituals of arranged marriage. As far as the plea of the petitioner that he had never voluntarily consented to the said marriage is concerned it is admitted fact from the side of the petitioner himself that marriage took place before the Marriage Registrar, Ranchi who is the competent authority for the marriage before him and his act as a public officer presumed to be true and correct and it cannot be questioned otherwise. It is well settled that the marriage took place before the Marriage Registrar presumed to be happened in accordance to law which took place only after they had given their consent before him and the voluntariness of the said consent be examined by the said Registrar who proceed for the marriage only after being satisfied with regard to voluntariness from both the parties. It is apparent from the record that petitioner has never raised any objection on the procedural aspect of the Marriage Registrar nor he questioned on his decision. Hence in view of the same it cannot be said that at the time of their marriage the petitioner's consent was not voluntary before the Marriage Registrar. This fact further be appreciated from the act and conduct of the petitioner as even after passing of so many days of her marriage he never complained to any authority, even in the court of law where he got opportunity to place this fact rather in court he admitted that he was in agreement of marriage with the respondent. In the view of the fact again his plea that he had not voluntarily consented of the said marriage tails to stand. The second plea of the petitioner that the respondent has committed cruelty upon him and his family members but from the perusal of the admitting fact of the petitioner itself it appears that after marriage before the Marriage Registrar, Ranchi he lived only three days with the respondent in her matrimonial home and in his evidence he failed to mention any act or action from the side of the respondent in the said period which come under definition of cruelty. Except the said three days only for one more day he had opportunity to live with the respondent when he returned back from his work place but he not lived with her. As far as he himself admitted that the date on which he returned back from his office at Barh to his home at Ranchi they quarreled to each other on the issue of respondent's misbehaviour with his parents and on the very next morning the respondent left at her matrimonial home with her mother. As far as he himself admitted that the date on which he returned back from his office at Barh to his home at Ranchi they quarreled to each other on the issue of respondent's misbehaviour with his parents and on the very next morning the respondent left at her matrimonial home with her mother. In the view of the fact it is amply clear that except the date he came back from his office at Barh to Ranchi even there is no occasion of committing cruelty by the respondent against the petitioner. Even for the argument sake it be presumed that on the last date respondent's quarrel with them this isolated event cannot be considered a cruelty from the side of the respondent when both the parties are quarreling to each other and the respondent has left her matrimonial home because of the same. As far as the petitioner's argument with regard to Ext. 10 is concerned the Ext.10 falsifies Ext.E of the respondent and claim of the respondent of committing assault on her in which she got injured and Ext.E is the injury report of the same is concerned, from the perusal of record it appears that Ext.10 filed by the petitioner at belated stage even though the said document was in the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner had ample opportunity to file this document at the time of filing of the suit, framing of issue or on his evidence but petitioner filed the document Ext.10 only after cross examination of witness in length and that under the provisions of Section 14 of Family Court Act which shows that filing of this document is nothing but an afterthought of the petitioner just to counter of Ext. E. Ext.10 not in any manner going to rebut the evidentiary value of Ext.E. Hence Ext.E prevails over Ext.10. Moreover, this is a case where the plaintiff has to prove cruelty committed upon him by the respondent and not that he committed cruelty upon the respondent in that view of the fact also the document in this regard is not going to help the petitioner in any way to prove its case. As far as the photographs filed from the side of respondent related to "Save Indian Family" are concerned, these documents are also not appears to be related nor relevant. As far as the photographs filed from the side of respondent related to "Save Indian Family" are concerned, these documents are also not appears to be related nor relevant. Hence the same has no evidentiary value for adjudication of this case. The third issue of lodging false and frivolous cases by the respondent against the petitioner is concerned it again not stand on the ground that (i) it is the consequences of the event going on between the parties, (ii) cases are filed from both the sides and (iii) opting legal recourse is always open to any of the person aggrieved by any act and action of any other persons and a legal recourse can never comes under definition of cruelty, the merit of the said cases filed by the parties on each other be considered by appropriate court of law and since the matter is still subjudiced hence mere lodging and filing and taking recourse to law at this juncture cannot be treated as cruelty. In the view of the fact discussed above it appears to this court that none of the plea of the petitioner stands on merit. Accordingly, the Issues Nos. (iii) & (v) are decided against the petitioner.” 12. The appellant has challenged the judgment in Divorce Suit inter-alia on the following grounds: (i) the various acts of the respondent particularly her act of not living in the company of the appellant amount to cruelty (ii) filing of false cases, challenging the quashment order and opposing the bail application(s) or challenging the order granting bail would amount to cruelty, and (iii) judgment in Divorce Suit is vitiated on account of inordinate delay in concluding the trial. 13. The Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeks to provide opportunity to any person in India and all Indian nationals in foreign countries irrespective of the faith which either party to the marriage may profess to avail of a special form of marriage provided thereunder – first enactment was the Special Marriage Act of 1872. Section 27 lays down the grounds on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife. Clause (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 27 provides that the aggrieved spouse may seek divorce on the ground that the respondent has treated him/her with cruelty since the solemnization of the marriage. Section 27 lays down the grounds on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife. Clause (d) to sub-section (1) of Section 27 provides that the aggrieved spouse may seek divorce on the ground that the respondent has treated him/her with cruelty since the solemnization of the marriage. A similar provision for divorce has been made under clause (i-a) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But both these enactments do not provide the definition of “cruelty”. Under section 10, the Divorce Act of 1869 provides the grounds for dissolution of marriage and one of the grounds under sub-section (1)(x) is cruelty. Sub-section (1)(x) to section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 provides that the aggrieved spouse may seek divorce on the ground that he/she has been treated with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the respondent. However, this needs to be remembered that no precise definition or guideline can be laid down nor is it possible to give exhaustive description of the circumstances which would constitute cruelty and the final conclusion would always turn on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Once Lord Tucker [Jamieson v. Jamieson : (1952) AC 525: (1952) 1 All ER 875 (HL)] had observed: “......... Judges have always carefully refrained from attempting a comprehensive definition of cruelty for the purposes of matrimonial suits and experience has shown the wisdom of this course”. 14. As PW1, the father of the appellant has supported his son in the Court and narrated the marriage negotiation, engagement ceremony and other episodes of misconduct of the respondent and her family members. He has however admitted in the cross-examination that he did not lodge a case regarding impersonation and replacing of the girl on engagement. He has further admitted that no complaint was made before the Marriage Registrar that there was any undue pressure from the police for solemnizing the marriage of his son with the respondent. One remarkable fact which appears in the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 which is spread over more than 300 questions, that he has refused to disclose whereabouts of his other children, his native village and other details apprehending danger to their life. One remarkable fact which appears in the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 which is spread over more than 300 questions, that he has refused to disclose whereabouts of his other children, his native village and other details apprehending danger to their life. PW2 and PW4 are acquaintances of the appellant who were examined to support the allegation that the appellant has refused to solemnize marriage with the respondent because a different girl was presented at the time of engagement. RW2 Rita Devi who is the mother and RW3 Manoj Prasad who is the father of the respondent came to the witness box in support of the case set-up by her that when the appellant refused to marry her she was constrained to lodge a criminal case, and after the marriage the appellant and his family members caused harassment and torture to her in connection to demand of dowry. As RW4, Satendra Prasad has stated in the Court that he was acquainted with both the families and acted as negotiator and mediator for the marriage of the respondent with the appellant. He has further stated that at the time of negotiation the parents of the respondent showed her photograph to the parents of the appellant and thereafter they had gone to see her and expressed their liking for the girl. RW4 has further stated that the appellant himself participated in the marriage negotiations and gave his consent for the engagement. He has further stated that the appellant has refused for marriage with the respondent. According to RW4, the appellant refused for the marriage because there were white patches on the forehead of the respondent – as told by the mother of the appellant. A look at the conduct of the parties as spoken by these witnesses and their side of the story offer little assistance to the Court to arrive at a definite conclusion as to who is the defaulting party. A kind of the situation like this presents serious difficulties for the Court and it is never an easy task to arrive at a decision. A kind of the situation like this presents serious difficulties for the Court and it is never an easy task to arrive at a decision. Perhaps the surest way to analyse the situation is to find whether the nature of cruelty inflicted upon the aggrieved spouse is of such a nature that satisfies the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. Therefore, it is necessary to read the story of their marriage in the couple's own words. 15. In the witness box, the appellant has narrated the story of engagement, criminal cases filed against each other and marriage pursuant to an agreement dated 22nd May 2012. He has stated that he was forced to marry the respondent under the compelling circumstances, that his parents are old and he is a government employee. He has further stated that under the pressure of the police he agreed for the marriage but after the marriage he tried to live a normal matrimonial conjugal life with the respondent. However, the respondent who is aggressive and indisciplined did not establish conjugal relation with him and started putting pressure on him to leave the family and stay separately at Ranchi. On 26th June 2012, he left for his work place and came back Ranchi on 29th July 2012. During this period, the respondent had abused his parents in filthy language and when he came back from his work place she humiliated him and threatened to commit suicide if he does not agree to take a house on rent. The appellant has narrated various acts of ill-treatment and cruelty by the respondent and lodging of the criminal cases. In a lengthy cross-examination spread over 321 questions nothing material could be elicited from him to show that he is not a truthful witness. The admission by the appellant about his presence in the photographs of engagement with which he was confronted in the cross-examination does not establish the case set-up by the respondent that the appellant has happily participated in the engagement ceremony. He has admitted in the cross-examination that after 30th July 2012 he did not visit the respondent at her parents' place and that he has not instituted any case for restitution of conjugal rights. 16. He has admitted in the cross-examination that after 30th July 2012 he did not visit the respondent at her parents' place and that he has not instituted any case for restitution of conjugal rights. 16. The relevant portions of the testimony of the appellant in his cross-examination run like this: 270- 22-05-2012 ls ysdj 23-06-2012 ds chp eSa dgha Hkh fyf[kr ugha fn;k fd le>kSrk esjhs ethZ ds f[kykQ ncko esa gqvk FkkA 271- Sub-Registrar jkaph lg fo'ks"k fookg inkf/kdkjh jkaph ds lkeus Hkh ;g ckr ugha dgh fd ;g fookg eSa viuh bZPNk ds fo:) rFkk fdlh ncko esa dj jgk gw¡A 272- eSa fookg ds ckn yxHkx 4 fnuksa rd jkaph esa jgkA pkj fnuksa ds ckn eSa viuh iRuh dks vius dk;ZLFky esa ugha ys x;k D;ksafd ogka ij eq>s Bachelor accommodation fn;k x;k FkkA 273- ;s eq>dks vHkh ;kn ugha fd le>kSrk esa D;k r; gqvk FkkA lk{kh izn'kZ B ns[kdj dgrs gSa fd ^^'kknh ds ckn izfrokfnuh esjs lkFk iRuh dh rjg jgsxhA 274- ,slh ckr ugha fy[kh xbZ gS fd eSa izfrokfnuh dks vius lkFk j[kwaxkA 275- le>kSrk esa ,slh ckr fy[kh xbZ gS fd izfrokfnuh esjh iRuh ds :i esa esjs lkFk jgsxhA 276- 'kknh ds mijkar izfrokfnuh tc esjs ?kj xbZ rks geyksx ,d dejs esa ifr iRuh dh rjg ugha jgsA 277- ftl dejs esa izfrokfnuh gekjs ?kj esa jgh ml dejs esa eSa iRuh ds lkFk ,d Hkh jkr ugha jgkA 278- eSaus nkEiR; thou fuokZg djus dk iz;kl fd;k Fkk ijarq izfrokfnuh us euk dj fn;kA 279- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd izfrokfnuh dks viuh iRuh ds :i esa lsok iqfLrdk ,oa vU; nLrkost esa uke ntZ djk;k gS fd ughaA 280- dkxth rkSj ij eSaus vius vki dks vius dk;kZy; esa fookfgr ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k gSA 281- fookg ds ckn eSa izfrokfnuh dks dgha ?kwekus ds fy, ugha ys x;k FkkA 282- ftrus fnu izfrokfnuh esjs ?kj jgh] ml vof/k ds nkSjku izfrokfnuh ds O;ogkj ds laca/k esa dafMdk 6] 7 ,oa 8 of.kZr rF;ksa ds ckjs esa dgha fy[kdj dqN ugha fn;k FkkA 283- fookg ds ckn izfrokfnuh dks jkaph NksM+dj eSa pyk x;k FkkA fQj fnukad 29-07-12 dks jkaph vk;kA 284- fnukad 30-07-12 dks izfrokfnuh ds eka vkSj ekek vkdj izfrokfnuh dks iwjs lkeku ds lkFk ys x;sA 285- os yksx esjs cqykus ij vk;s FksA eSaus pkS/kjh vady ds }kjk mudks lwpuk nh FkhA^^ English Translation: “270. I have not made a written complaint between 22nd May 2012 to 23rd June 2012 that the compromise was made under pressure against my wishes. 271. Before the Sub Registrar-cum-Special Marriage Officer at Ranchi also I did not make a complaint that the marriage was against my wishes and under any pressure. 272. I stayed at Ranchi for 4 days after the marriage. I did not take my wife to my place of work after those 4 days because I was provided bachelor's accommodation there. 273. Presently I do not recollect the terms of the compromise. On seeing Exhibit-B the witness says, that after the marriage the respondent shall live with me as my wife. 274. This is not written that I would keep the respondent with myself. 275. This is written in the compromise that the respondent shall stay with me as my wife. 276. After the marriage when the respondent came to my home we never stayed in a room as husband and wife. 277. I never stayed with the respondent as my wife even for a night in the room where the respondent was living in my house. 278. I had tried to lead a conjugal life but the respondent had declined. 279. I do not remember whether name of the respondent is recorded as my wife in my service book and other documents. 280. I have not made a written declaration in my office that I am married. 281. I did not take the respondent for a pleasure trip after the marriage. 282. I did not make any complaint about the conduct of the respondent as written in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 for the period the respondent stayed in my house. 283. After the marriage I left the respondent at Ranchi and came back on 29th July 2012. 284. The mother and maternal uncle of the respondent came on 30th July 2012 and took her away alongwith all her belongings. 285. They had come there on my call. I had sent message to them through Choudhary uncle.” 17. The respondent who tendered evidence in the Court as RW1 has narrated her story of miseries in the matrimonial home. She has stated that 3-4 days after the marriage the appellant left for his work place and he and his family members started demanding Rs.2.5 Lakhs as legal expenses and Rs.10 Lakhs as dowry. The respondent who tendered evidence in the Court as RW1 has narrated her story of miseries in the matrimonial home. She has stated that 3-4 days after the marriage the appellant left for his work place and he and his family members started demanding Rs.2.5 Lakhs as legal expenses and Rs.10 Lakhs as dowry. She has further stated that on her raising objections the parents and brother of the appellant would torture her and called her a whore. According to the respondent, on 29th July 2012 her brother-in-law attacked her with a knife and sensing the ill-intention when she raised hulla the neighbours came there and warned the appellant and his family members. However, she could not weather the heat of cross-examination and seems to have crumbled inasmuch as she could not answer numerous questions and has simply said she has no recollection. She has admitted that the appellant and his family members were granted bail on the basis of the compromise dated 22nd May 2012. As regards the criminal cases and the compromise dated 22nd May 2012, the respondent has made the following statements in paragraph nos. She has admitted that the appellant and his family members were granted bail on the basis of the compromise dated 22nd May 2012. As regards the criminal cases and the compromise dated 22nd May 2012, the respondent has made the following statements in paragraph nos. 100 to 122 which throw considerable light on matrimonial life of the parties: 100- eq>s ugha irk fd ml le; izgykn ,oa muds ifjokj okys iqfyl inkf/kdkjh dk lykg ugha ekus blfy, ,Q-vkbZ-vkj ntZ gqvkA 101- geyksx vkil esa le>kSrk tks fookn gqvk Fkk mlds laca/k esa fd, FksA 102- geyksx dk le>kSrk 22-05-2012 dks gqvkA le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij izgykn ,oa izgykn ds ifjokj okyksa dks tekur gqvkA 103- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd eSa le>kSrk esa cksyh Fkh fd le>kSrk ds ckn eSa lkjk eqdnek mBk ywaxhA 104- geyksx le>kSrk dh lwpuk vuqla/kku inkf/kdkjh dks ugha fn, FksA iqu% dgrh gS fd eq>s ;kn ugha gSA 105- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd eSaus dHkh Hkh vuqla/kku inkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa le>kSrk lqpuk nh dh ugha fd gekjs chp le>kSrk gks x;k gSA 106- eq>s ugha ekywe fd eSaus vuqla/kku inkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa le>kSrk dk lwpuk ugha nh blfy, vuqla/kku inkf/kdkjh 30-06-2012 dks izgykn ,oa muds ifjokj okys ds fo:) pktZ&'khV U;k;ky; esa lefiZr fd;kA 107- eSa ugha tkurh fd vuqla/kku inkf/kdkjh 22-05-2012 ds ckn izgykn ,oa muds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:) pktZ&'khV nk;j dhA 108- eq>s ugha irk fd eSaus izn'kZ B ds dafMdk 6 ds fu;e ,oa 'krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k ;k ughaA 109- eSa izgykn ,oa mlds ifjokj okyksa ds tekur dks jn~n djus ds fy, vkosnu futh vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls nh FkhA eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd esjk ;g vkosnu [kkfjt gks x;kA eq>s ;kn ugha fd izgykn ,oa muds ifjokj okys nwckjk tekur ds fy, vkosnu fn, ;k ughaA 110- eq>s irk ugha fd esjs c;ku ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl izgykn ,oa muds ifjokj okyksa ds fo:) vjxksM+k Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 133@2012 esa 3@4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds lkFk /kkjk 376 vkbZ-ih-lh- tksM+ fn;kA ,slh ckr ugha gS fd eSa ;g ckr tkucw>dj >wB cksy jgh gwa fd eq>s irk ugha gSA 111- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd /kkjk 376 vkbZ-ih-lh- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk jn~n dj fn;k x;kA 112- eSa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds fo:) ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa xbZ FkhA 113- eSa fdl vkns'k ds f[kykQ ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; xbZ Fkh&eq>s ;kn ugha gSA ,slh ckr ugha gS fd eSa tkucw>dj >wB cksy jgh gwaA 114- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd eSa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa fdl pht dk vkosnu nh FkhA ,slh ckr ugha gS fd eSa ;g Hkh tkucw>dj >wB cksy jgh gwaA 115- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd tc ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us /kkjk 376 dks jn~n dj fn;k rc eSa Vªjk;y dksVZ esa fyf[kr :i ls vkosnu nh Fkh fd eq>s bl vkns'k ds f[kykQ ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; tkuk gSA ,slh ckr ugha gS fd eSa ;g ckr >wB cksy jgh gwaA 116- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; esa esjk vkosnu [kkfjt gks x;kA 117- eSa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh fMftVy izfr tks U;k;ky; esa tek gS ftldh dkWih eq>s feyh gS & mls eSa ns[kh gwa ;k ugha] eq>s ;kn ugha gSA 118- lk{kh lqizhe dksVZ ds vkns'k dh izfr dks ns[kdj dgrs gSa fd blij esjk ,oa izgykn dk uke fy[kk gqvk gS ,oa bles esjk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;k] ;g fy[kk gqvk gSA ,slh ckr ugha gS fd eSa bl vkns'k dks Nqikus dk iz;kl dj jgh FkhA tks fy[kk gqvk Fkk eSa iढ+ dj crk nhA 119- eSa ugha tkurh fd 18-02-2012 dh ?kVuk dks ysdj /kkjk 376 yxk;k x;k Fkk tks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ls jn~n gks x;kA 120- eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd izgykn ds HkkbZ dq'k ds fo:) lkjk eqdnek ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls jn~n gks x;kA 121- eSa ;g Lohdkj djrh gwa fd gekjk fookg consummate ugha gks ik;kA consummate dk eryc physical relation gksrk gSA 122- izgykn dHkh Hkh 'kknh consummate djus dh dksf'k'k ugha fd;kA eSa Hkh dHkh dksf'k'k ugha fd D;ksafd izgykn dHkh esjs dejs esa ugha vkrk FkkA** English Translation: “100. I have no knowledge that FIR was lodged because Prahalad and his family members did not heed to the advice of the police officer at that time. 101. We have entered into a compromise in relation to the dispute between us. 102. The compromise was done on 22nd May 2012. Prahalad and his family members were admitted to bail on the basis of the compromise. 103. I do not remember that I had said in the compromise that I would withdraw all the cases after the compromise. 104. I did not inform the investigating officer about the compromise. The witness says again, that I do not remember this. 105. I do not remember that I had ever informed the investigating officer in writing that we have entered into a compromise. 106. I do not know that the investigating officer filed charge-sheet in the Court on 30th June 2012 against Prahalad and his family members because I did not inform the investigating officer about the compromise in writing. 107. I do not know whether the investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet against Prahalad and his family members after 22nd May 2012. 108. I do not know whether I have violated the conditions under clause 6 of Exhibit-B. 109. I had filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to Prahalad and his family members, through a private lawyer. I do not remember whether my application was dismissed. This also I do not remember whether Prahalad and his family members had applied second time for bail. 110. I do not know that the police added offence under section 376 IPC against Prahalad and his family members in Argora PS Case No. 133 of 2012 filed under section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This is not correct to say that knowingly I am making a false statement, that I have no knowledge. 111. I do not remember whether the offence under section 376 IPC has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. 112. I had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. 113. I do not remember against which order I had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is not correct to say that I am lying intentionally. 114. I do not remember about the application filed by me in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. 113. I do not remember against which order I had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is not correct to say that I am lying intentionally. 114. I do not remember about the application filed by me in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is not correct that I am intentionally making this false statement. 115. I do not remember that after the Hon'ble High Court quashed the offence under section 376 IPC I had filed an application in the trial Court stating that I intend to challenge the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is not correct to say that I am making a false statement. 116. I do not remember that my application was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 117. I received a digital copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which I have submitted in this Court. However, I do not remember whether I had seen that or not. 118. After seeing the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the witness admits that her name and name of Prahalad are written over there and, that, this is also written there that my application has been dismissed. This is not correct that I am trying to conceal this order. Whatever was written there I have read that. 119. I do not know whether the offence under section 376 IPC in connection to the incident dated 18th February 2012 was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 120. I do not remember that the entire criminal proceeding against Kush who is the brother of Prahalad has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. 121. I admit that my marriage was not consummated. The meaning of consummate is physical relation. 122. Prahalad never made any effort to consummate the marriage. I also did not make any effort because Prahalad never used to come to my room.” 18. The expression cruelty as envisaged under different Statutes refers to such human conduct or behavior which adversely affects the other spouse. The conduct or behavior of the spouse should be of such nature that the aggrieved spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. The expression cruelty as envisaged under different Statutes refers to such human conduct or behavior which adversely affects the other spouse. The conduct or behavior of the spouse should be of such nature that the aggrieved spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. Therefore, an exercise to determine the extent of harm caused to the aggrieved spouse on account of a course of conduct of the other spouse would necessarily involve an inquiry into the background, education, status, custom and tradition of the parties and other circumstances of the case. In American Jurisprudence the expression “mental cruelty” in the context of matrimonial relationship means a course of unprovoked conduct of a spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation and anguish so as to render life of the other spouse miserable and unendurable. The Halsbury's Law of England, (Volume-13, Fourth edition at para 1269) mentions that in all cases of cruelty the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered and this rule assumes special significance when cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. 19. The pleadings of the parties and the materials laid before the Court in support thereof reveal a bizarre story. This is the story of a marriage which started with allegations and counter-allegations against each other. The indisputable fact is that the appellant refused to marry with the respondent who in turn lodged a criminal complaint with the police. While the tussle between the parties continued and the appellant did not budge an allegation of attempt to rape was introduced in the criminal complaint filed with Doranda (Argora) PS. Thereafter, both the parties got involved in a legal slugfest in the Courts in the coming ten years. The allegation of demand of dowry by the appellant and his family members has been found untrue by the police and a Final Form has been filed in Jagarnathpur (Pundag) PS Case No.293 of 2014. Similarly, the allegation of attempt to rape against the appellant has been found false by the Court. The respondent stayed for a brief period in her matrimonial home and according to the appellant the marriage was not consummated. The respondent does not put vermilion which is a sign of marriage of a Hindu girl and she never tried to join her husband in the matrimonial home. The respondent stayed for a brief period in her matrimonial home and according to the appellant the marriage was not consummated. The respondent does not put vermilion which is a sign of marriage of a Hindu girl and she never tried to join her husband in the matrimonial home. The appellant has admitted that he did not seek restitution of the conjugal rights and he has also not shown any willingness to bring his wife back home. Similarly, the allegation against the respondent of putting pressure upon her husband to stay separately from his parents does not seem to be the main reason why the couple could never reunite. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh: (2007) 4 SCC 511 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has very aptly observed that the human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. No doubt a wife who is living away from the company of her husband for a decade is also suffering but there seems no justifiable reason for her not to revive the matrimonial ties. But with the passage of time the emotions and feelings which run through a marriage are lost and now it seems impossible to make a bridge over the troubled waters. 20. Under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man under the circumstances would proceed on the supposition that such fact really exists. Therefore, the normal rule of preponderance of probability is the rule which governs the civil proceedings. The Court therefore tries to find out whether on weighing the various probabilities the preponderance is in favor of existence of the fact in question. The expression “preponderance of probability” is not capable of exact definition nor can there be any strait-jacket formula or a weighing machine to find out which side the balance is tilted. The preponderance of probability would imply a positive element about possibility of existence of a fact. This means a higher degree of probability of happening of something and existence of a fact. Applying this rule, we find that the story of changing girl at the time of engagement was imaginary or at best arising out of a misunderstanding. The preponderance of probability would imply a positive element about possibility of existence of a fact. This means a higher degree of probability of happening of something and existence of a fact. Applying this rule, we find that the story of changing girl at the time of engagement was imaginary or at best arising out of a misunderstanding. Similarly, the story set-up by the respondent that the appellant became infuriated when she refused sexual favors to him does not seem to be a reason for the appellant to abandon the marriage. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur: AIR 2005 SC 534 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the concept, a 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, the Court has to see what are the probabilities in the 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 caused by the acts or omissions of the other. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant saying that under the pressure of the police he agreed for the marriage to save his family from harassment seems to be true. 21. On weighing the evidence of PW3 and RW1, we have formed an opinion that their marriage has hit a road block and there is absolutely no chance of revival of matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent. A marriage demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection for each other and requires sufficient room for reasonable adjustments. The emotion which oozes in a matrimonial tie has completely dried up – rather, never emerged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court , Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur : AIR 2007 SC 2083 , has held that the matrimonial matters must be considered by the Courts with human angle and sensitivity. The delicate issues affecting conjugal relations have to be handed carefully and legal provisions should be construed and interpreted without being oblivious or unmindful of the human weaknesses. The Family Courts Act, 1984 lays special emphasis on conciliation for achieving socially desirable results. The delicate issues affecting conjugal relations have to be handed carefully and legal provisions should be construed and interpreted without being oblivious or unmindful of the human weaknesses. The Family Courts Act, 1984 lays special emphasis on conciliation for achieving socially desirable results. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena : (2015) 6 SCC 353 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before the Family Court. It not only gives rise to whole family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and everestine bitterness, and also leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. However, the proceedings before the Family Court tell a sad story. There was inordinate delay in concluding the Divorce Suit and the Conciliation and Mediation exercise at JHALSA has failed. The delaying tactics adopted by the respondent who took 36 adjournments before filing the written statement and the Family Court not taking any serious effort for Mediation and Conciliation have further compounded the problem. In course of the hearing of this Divorce Suit, we also put to the appellant whether there is any chance of a compromise but he expressed his unwillingness to explore the possibility of any amicable settlement. 22. The concept of cruelty has changed according to the changes and advancement in the society and standards of living. The expansion of the meaning of the expression “cruelty” by the judicial pronouncements is one example on display of the Courts adopting 'ongoing statute' approach. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a Judge of the Supreme Court of United States has once observed that: “a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of the living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect or indifference attitude of one spouse towards the other are the factors which would lead to mental and legal cruelty, Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. : (1981) 4 SCC 250 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect or indifference attitude of one spouse towards the other are the factors which would lead to mental and legal cruelty, Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. : (1981) 4 SCC 250 . The appellant would contend that parents of the respondent had no substantial earnings and looking at the allegations made in the criminal cases it is not difficult to see that unsubstantiated allegations of demand of dowry have been made against him and his family members which has caused immense mental torture, agony and sufferings to him. The insistence of the respondent that the appellant must stay in a rented house or in the house of her parents cannot be justified and must have caused tremendous pressure and torture in the minds of the appellant. The criminal case lodged by the respondent at Jagarnathpur (Pundag) PS has been closed because no one came forward to support the allegations made by the respondent. The kind of allegations such as rape/attempt to rape levelled by the respondent and the complaints, petitions, applications etc. filed by the respondent provide sufficient indication that the appellant was put to unsurmountable harassment and torture. The filing of criminal complaints and the petition for cancellation of bail or to challenge the order of discharge under sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code must have engaged the appellant running from one Court to another and exhausted the best part of his life. This is also bearing in our mind that if in every case where a petition for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty on account of filing of false criminal cases the Court waits till a judicial pronouncement on innocence of the accused is delivered, it would be almost impossible for the spouse seeking divorce to establish mental cruelty. Normally a divorce case on such a ground is filed within one or two years of filing of the criminal case but conclusion of the criminal trial may take several years. Normally a divorce case on such a ground is filed within one or two years of filing of the criminal case but conclusion of the criminal trial may take several years. Therefore, what needs to be seen is whether a prima-facie case has been established by the spouse seeking divorce that he/she has suffered immense mental torture and agony and that he/she has reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful for him/her to live in the company of the other spouse and having regard to the other circumstances of the case the Court may pass a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. In our opinion, the Family Court has misdirected itself on this point and recorded a wrong finding that the respondent who lived with the appellant for couple of days only could not have inflicted cruelty upon him. 23. Under section 19(1), an appeal shall lie from any judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. Therefore, acting as a Court of First Appeal the High Court can re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion. In Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi: (2008) 10 SCC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that subject to a limitation that the trial Courts' conclusions should not normally be disturbed, the High Court possesses the same powers as that of the original Court. 24. The respondent stayed in her matrimonial home for a brief period and did not join the company of her husband ever thereafter. The appellant has stated in the Court that there was no cohabitation of the couple and the marriage was not consummated. Both parties never attempted to join the company of each other and remained indifferent to each other's feelings. The respondent has made a complaint that during her stay in the matrimonial home her husband used to sleep in a separate room. But she also did not make any effort to reason with her grumpy husband who was unhappy about filing of criminal cases and dragging him to the Court. The respondent has admitted in her cross-examination that she does not put vermilion which is a sign of married woman and she has not shown any remorse and repentence for not taking any effort to join the company of her husband. The respondent has admitted in her cross-examination that she does not put vermilion which is a sign of married woman and she has not shown any remorse and repentence for not taking any effort to join the company of her husband. When the marriage life of the couple is seen in the background of the aforesaid facts, we get a feeling that the marital bond between the parties is broken beyond repair. The conduct of the respondent in making unfounded wild allegation of attempt to rape was a clear threat to the appellant and his family members who under the fear of going to jail agreed for a compromise. May be the appellant had made some indecent or vulgar suggestion to the respondent but it is unbelievable that a boy would attempt to rape his future wife and that too in her own house. The stand taken by the appellant that the allegation was false, fabricated and untrue is supported by the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2014 by which the charge under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code has been quashed. There was an attempt to involve other family members in a false case is also apparent from the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 116 of 2014 whereby the entire criminal proceeding against the brother of appellant arising out of Doranda (Argora) PS Case No. 133 of 2012 has been quashed by the High Court. Furthermore, the police did not find any substance in the allegation made by the respondent in Jagarnathpur (Pundag) PS Case No. 293 of 2014 which was closed with a Final Form in favor of the accused persons. In a case like the present one where there is a judicial pronouncement in favor of the appellant, there is a police report against the respondent and the appellant is fighting the legal battle since the very beginning of the marriage; there would be little doubt that the appellant has suffered the kind of mental cruelty which entitles him to seek a decree of divorce under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 25. The Additional Family Court failed to apply the correct test to appreciate the evidence laid by both sides and has come to a wrong conclusion. 26. 25. The Additional Family Court failed to apply the correct test to appreciate the evidence laid by both sides and has come to a wrong conclusion. 26. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances in the case, the judgment and decree in Original Suit No. 243 of 2013 are set-aside. The Divorce Suit is allowed and marriage of the appellant solemnized with the respondent on 23rd June 2012 is dissolved. 27. This evinces no doubt that the Court exercising jurisdiction under section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 can direct the appellant to pay to the respondent for maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the spouse against whom a decree of divorce has been rendered. However, the amount of permanent alimony and maintenance shall be fixed having regard to the income and other properties of the parties, conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case as the Court may be just and proper. The appellant is working with National Thermal Power Corporation and was receiving a handsome salary of more than Rs.83,000/-per month in the year 2015. The respondent's father is a businessman who runs a grocery shop at Ranchi. There is no other details on record about the properties owned by the parties but there cannot be any doubt that a wife is entitled to live a reasonably good life with all such comforts had the marriage been not dissolved. Normally in absence of complete details of the income and other properties of the parties the Court should not fix the amount of permanent alimony and maintenance. But keeping in mind the facts and circumstances in the case which unerringly disclose sufferings of both the parties, and with a view to give an end to the matrimonial litigation, we have decided to fix the amount of permanent alimony and maintenance for the respondent and, accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs to the respondent as permanent alimony for her maintenance. 28. The amount of permanent alimony and maintenance shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent through a demand draft drawn in her name or through any electronic mode of payment within 3 months, failing which this amount shall be recovered from the appellant as provided under section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 28. The amount of permanent alimony and maintenance shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent through a demand draft drawn in her name or through any electronic mode of payment within 3 months, failing which this amount shall be recovered from the appellant as provided under section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 29. First Appeal No.181 of 2019 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Ratnaker Bhengra, J. - I agree