JUDGMENT : (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) : 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment & decree dated 15-6-2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba, in civil suit No.142-A/2019 whereby the application preferred by the appellant/husband for grant of decree of divorce was dismissed. The husband is in appeal before this Court. 2. (i) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the parties were married on 24-2-2011. It has been alleged by the husband that on the next day of marriage his parents and his younger brother went to Raipur. At that time his father was posted at Raipur. They stayed at Raipur till 30-10-2011 and thereafter, they came back to Korba on 1-11-2011. The husband further contended that after the marriage the wife is not cooperating in the household works and creating pressure to live separately. She always used to humiliate the husband and asked him to send his sexagenarian parents to the old age home. The wife is also not willing to stay at paternal village Baismuda, District Janjgir. After retirement when his parents are residing with him, the wife became annoyed and used to quarrel and without any rhyme or reason she always used to go to her maternal house, which is also situated at Korba. (ii) On 14-11-2011 the wife has called her father and returned to her parental house along with her clothes and jewellery. On 14-12-2011 one baby girl was born and when the husband had gone to bring back the wife at that time the wife again created pressure to live separately and to keep her at Government quarter and also made a demand that he will not allow to keep his parents in that house. Though the husband has tried his level best to convince his wife, but she has not agreed for the same and started doing the Government job at Bilaspur since February, 2014. She used to threaten the husband to implicate him and his family members in false case of dowry and domestic violence. (iii) Husband has also made a complaint about such threatening to the Superintendent of Police, Korba on various dates i.e. 19-3-2012, 23-4-2012, 30-5-2013. During counselling held on 21-4-2012 at Mahila Councelling Centre, Korba, the wife has acceded her mistake. She used to threaten the husband to implicate him and his family members in false case of dowry and domestic violence. (iii) Husband has also made a complaint about such threatening to the Superintendent of Police, Korba on various dates i.e. 19-3-2012, 23-4-2012, 30-5-2013. During counselling held on 21-4-2012 at Mahila Councelling Centre, Korba, the wife has acceded her mistake. Subsequently, she had filed maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur on 17-7-2012 and during the counselling she refused to join the company of the husband. On the basis of compromise, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month was awarded by order dated 20-2-2013 and the same was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month by order dated 1-8-2018 passed by the High Court. In the maintenance proceedings the wife has supressed the material fact that she was doing the Government job. The husband has earlier filed an application under Section 9 of the restitution of conjugal rights. (iv) After appearance of the wife, it appears that there are chances of reconciliation, therefore, he filed an application for withdrawal of the said application and subsequently, withdrew the same on 22-2-2013. The wife has made a complaint against the husband and his parents before the Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, Raipur, on 27-4-2012 on the basis of false allegations. During the counselling proceedings, which were held on 6-12-2012 & 15-2-2023, she remained absent and hence the Commission has filed such complaint on 15-2-2023. Thereafter, the wife has again filed a compliant case under the Domestic Violence Act on 18-3-2013, which was also culminated in further dismissal vide order dated 12-9-2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The wife has also filed a police complaint on 21-7-2013 for cruelty on the basis of bringing less dowry and she also complained that the husband used to make allegation on her about witchcraft. In such case, during the bail proceedings the wife has objection (Ex.P/21) to protest the bail application. Parents of the husband were sent to jail for about 3 days from 27-7-2013 to 29-7-2013 and the said proceedings were also resulted in acquittal by the judgment dated 5-2-2019 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and the same was affirmed by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 16-1-2020 rendered in CRA No.296/2018 (Ex.P/31). Parents of the husband were sent to jail for about 3 days from 27-7-2013 to 29-7-2013 and the said proceedings were also resulted in acquittal by the judgment dated 5-2-2019 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and the same was affirmed by the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 16-1-2020 rendered in CRA No.296/2018 (Ex.P/31). It was further pleaded that the wife is living separately since 14-11-2011 and she is not fulfilling the matrimonial obligations and there was no physical relation with the wife. Thus, considering this backdrop the husband seeks decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. While denying the aforesaid contention of the husband, it is pleaded by the wife that after the marriage the husband and his parents started harassing her for bringing less dowry, therefore, under these circumstances, she made a complaint. She stated that on account of pressure given by her husband and in-laws, her father has given an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- through account payee cheque on 11-3-2011. Wife also stated that she never asked that her in-laws to be sent to the old age home and also never made any inclination to not to reside in the paternal village Baismuda, District Janjgir. According to the wife, she is doing job of Teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kota, District Bilaspur. The husband filed the divorce petition on the basis of false grounds. Wife stated that she is always ready and willing to stay with the husband, if the husband keep in a dignified manner. She prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. The appellant/husband on his behalf examined himself as PW-1 along with three other witnesses namely; Laxmi Prasad as PW-2; Yadves as PW-3 and Amar Pradhan (PW-4). The respondent/wife in her favour examined herself as DW-1 and her father Santosh Kumar as DW-2. 5. On the basis of pleadings, learned Family Court has framed the issue as to whether the wife has meted out cruelty towards the husband and without any sufficient cause deserted the husband for more than two years and after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the application preferred by the husband for grant of decree of divorce holding that he has failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty by the wife. Thus, this appeal. 6. Thus, this appeal. 6. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband would submit that after the marriage the wife used to create pressure to live separately and her behaviour was not cordial towards the parents of the husband. Albeit the father of the husband has retired from the Government job, the wife created pressure upon him to send his sexagenarian parents to old age home and only on such condition she want to reside with him. The husband has not acceded to such condition, therefore, she started threatening to implicate the husband and his parents in a false case. (ii) Eventually, the wife filed a complaint before the State Women Commission but she has not turned up in the said proceedings. The wife also filed false cases under the Domestic Violence Act and under Section 498-A of the IPC. These cases were culminated in favour of the husband. Learned counsel would submit that in the bail application filed by the parents of the husband for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the wife opposed the same. In the said matter, the parents were sent to jail for three days. Due to such behaviour of the wife it is very difficult for the husband to reside with the wife and to keep the married life intact. The learned Court below has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Therefore, under the circumstances the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. To buttress her contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Talreja v Kavita Talreja : (2017) 14 SCC 194 and Rani Narasimha Sastry v Rani Suneela Rani : (2020) 18 SCC 247 . 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, per contra, would submit that after the marriage the husband and his parents started harassing her to bring less dowry and also made demand of money. To fulfill such demand, the father of the wife has given an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- through account payee cheque and the husband has also not allowed the wife to keep her at his posting place, therefore, the husband himself was at fault. Under these compelling circumstances, the wife has lodged the FIR and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. 1,75,000/- through account payee cheque and the husband has also not allowed the wife to keep her at his posting place, therefore, the husband himself was at fault. Under these compelling circumstances, the wife has lodged the FIR and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. The wife is always willing to join the company of the husband. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is well merited and needs no interference of this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of parties was solemnised on 24-2-2011 and both had lived for a very short period of about nine months together and the wife admitted in her deposition at para 7 that she was residing separately since 14-11-2011. On such date the father of the wife namely; Santosh Kumar (DW-2) had gone to bring back his daughter for delivery and thereafter the wife has delivered a baby girl on 14-12-2011 and informed the said fact to the husband and his parents. DW-2 Santosh Kumar further deposed that upon such information the husband came but no other member of the in-laws had come to see the newly born baby girl and taunted the respondent/wife for delivering the girl child and also made allegation that the husband and his parents also do not want to take the wife to matrimonial house, as she has practiced witchcraft in their house. After completion of three months age of baby girl, they had contacted the parents of the husband had come to bring back the wife and baby girl, but they categorically denied. According to the witness, the husband has made a false complaint to the police. Even in the counselling the appellant refused to bring back the wife. Under these circumstances, the wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court. 10. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has deposed that after delivery of baby girl he had gone to bring back the wife but they have refused to send her back and made a condition that he should not keep his parents with him and the couple (both the parties) should live separately in a Government quarter then only she will join his company. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has deposed that after delivery of baby girl he had gone to bring back the wife but they have refused to send her back and made a condition that he should not keep his parents with him and the couple (both the parties) should live separately in a Government quarter then only she will join his company. He further deposed that though he tried his level best to convince the wife, but she has not acceded for the same. Meanwhile, the wife has got the Government job on the post of Teacher. Since February, 2014 the wife has started creating pressure upon the husband to send his parents to their paternal village and also threatened him to implicate in a false case and hence in such circumstances, he has made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Korba, on various dates i.e. 19-3-2012. 23-4-2012, 30-5-2013 and in the counselling held on 21-4-2012 at Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Korba, wife has admitted her mistake, but she has not joined the company of the appellant/husband and filed maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court on 17-7-2012. The wife has also filed a complaint before the State Women Commission on 27-4-2012, but she did not attend the counselling proceedings of the Commission on 6-12-2012 and 15-2-2013, therefore, the Commission has filed the complaint of wife on 15-2-2013. 11. The wife has filed another complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act before the JMFC on 18-3-2013 and the same was culminated in favour of the husband on 12-9-2019. The wife has also filed criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and lodged the FIR on 21-7-2013 in which during the bail proceeding the wife has made a protest application (Ex.P/21) to oppose the bail application of the parents of the husband and the parents were sent to jail for three days from 27-7-2013 to 29-7-2013. Subsequently, the said proceedings were resulted into acquittal vide judgment dated 5-2-2019 and the same was also affirmed by the Sessions Court in CRA No.296/2018 vide judgment dated 16-1-2020 (Ex.P/31). Subsequently, the said proceedings were resulted into acquittal vide judgment dated 5-2-2019 and the same was also affirmed by the Sessions Court in CRA No.296/2018 vide judgment dated 16-1-2020 (Ex.P/31). Appellant has further deposed that in the year 2013 he has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and after appearance of the wife, he felt that there was chance of reconciliation as promised by the wife, upon which, he has withdrawn the said application. In spite of the said fact, the wife has not joined the company of the husband and filed various litigation against him. Thus, the divorce petition was filed by the husband. In the said divorce petition the counselling was held. On 31-12-2017 the wife has categorically denied to join the company of the husband. 12. Perusal of the counselling proceedings before the Family Court, it is manifest that on 20-10-2015 the husband made an offer to reunite the family, but the wife has not accepted the condition to withdraw the cases, which she has filed against the husband and his parents. Again on 17-12-2015 the husband made an offer to live at the paternal village, but the wife refused for the same. On 25-2-2017 the wife has made another condition that as she was doing job at Kota, Bilaspur, so the husband has to reside at Bilaspur. On 31-1-2017 the husband has made an offer to the wife to reside with him at his posting place and the wife declined the said offer and put a condition that husband has to reside along with her at her place of posting. On the said date, the wife has categorically denied to join the company of the husband. Even during pendency of the present appeal, an effort has been made through mediation for reconciliation and the same was unsuccessful. The husband has withdrawn the earlier divorce petition on 20-8-2018 and again filed the instant divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and desertion on 22-10-2019. 13. It is noteworthy to mention here that though the marriage took place between the parties on 24-2-2011 and the wife also delivered a baby girl on 14-12-2011 instead after entering into marital life, she made a nomination in her service book on 3-9-2014 in favour of her father, as her nominee. 13. It is noteworthy to mention here that though the marriage took place between the parties on 24-2-2011 and the wife also delivered a baby girl on 14-12-2011 instead after entering into marital life, she made a nomination in her service book on 3-9-2014 in favour of her father, as her nominee. This reflects the state of mind of the wife that even after the marriage her inclination is not with her husband, but she is most affectionate with her father. 14. It is true that mere lodging of FIR or filing of complaint before the statutory authority for redressal of grievance cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But considering the marital life, immediately after about nine months of the marriage when the wife has gone for the purpose of delivery and after delivery of the baby girl she never came to the house of the husband and she had made complaint to the State Women Commission during the initial period of their marital life in the year 2012 and she had not attended the proceedings and for such reason the Commission has closed the complaint. The allegation was made by the wife for the domestic violence besides being a criminal case filed by her for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The same resulted into acquittal, which affirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal. The allegation made by the wife about harassment meted out by the husband and his parents was not substantiated and proved. 15. From the very beginning the wife has always been putting a condition to join with the company of the husband and various counselling proceedings have been held and in every proceeding she made a condition and never accepted any proposal of the husband to save her married life and in such situation both were lived separately since 2011. When the husband asserts that after the marriage, the wife was always insisting the husband to stay away from his parents specially when they are sexagenarian (now septuagenarian) then any such demand of any spouse cannot be appreciated in the Indian Society. When the husband asserts that after the marriage, the wife was always insisting the husband to stay away from his parents specially when they are sexagenarian (now septuagenarian) then any such demand of any spouse cannot be appreciated in the Indian Society. It appears that even after the delivery of baby girl, as per the allegation of the husband, the wife on such demand was not returning to the matrimonial home and she has not only filed the complaint case for the domestic violence and also for the cruelty but also made protest for the bail petition of the parents of the husband and on such lodging of FIR, parents of the husband were sent to jail. 16. In the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry (supra) the Supreme Court held thus at para 13 that it is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal for his or her grievances and lodge a first information report for an offence also and mere lodging of complaint or FIR cannot ipso facto be treated as cruelty. But when a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of the allegation of offence under Section 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband. 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Talreja (supra) held thus at paras 9 to 11 : 9) This Court in Para 16 of K. Srinivas Rao v D.A. Deepa has held as follows: (SCC p. 234) “16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.” 10) In Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, this Court while dealing with the definition of ‘cruelty’ held as follows: (SCC pp. 480-81, paras 19-20) “19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. 480-81, paras 19-20) “19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety—it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon, held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed.” 11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under Section 182 of IPC. 18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and during the whole married life of the parties they have lived happily for a very short period and thereafter litigations have been started and they had made allegation against each other. 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. From the year 2012 the wife has filed complaint before the State Women Commission. Even after passing the acquittal order by two Courts below, the matter is not yet ended and further litigation of criminal prosecution is still pending at the behest of the wife before the High Court and the wife has never compromised during counselling and considering the fact that two Courts have found the allegation made by the wife for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not substantiated and in such criminal case even the parents of the husband were sent to jail, we are of the view that the case of mental cruelty was made out by the husband and hence he is entitled for a decree of divorce. 19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Family Court requires interference. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15-6-2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Korba, in civil suit No.142-A/2019 is set aside. The marriage solemnised between the parties on 24-2-2011 is dissolved by decree of divorce. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 21. A decree be drawn accordingly.