JUDGMENT : Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2016 passed in M.C.No.371/2009 by the IV Additional Family Court, Bangalore, by which the petition filed by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage, was allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 10.05.1999 at Sri Bhuvaneshwari Kalayna Mantapa as per the customs and rituals. Out of the wedlock two children were born i.e., on 01.11.2000 and 08.12.2006. It is averred that when the couple started living at Bangalore, the appellant started behaving indifferently towards the respondent and other family members, she was always in the habit of abusing his mother and on 16.06.1999, she threw kitchen articles on the mother-in-law and picked up quarrel. The behavior of the appellant was rude, arrogant, disobedient and in the month of January 2000, she left matrimonial home along with her luggage. Later her father has apologized for the incident and then the appellant joined the matrimonial home. The appellant has failed to inform the respondent about the birth of the child on 01.11.2000 and she has not allow him to see the child. It is further averred that on 31.12.2000 the respondent met with an accident the appellant did not take care of him and she was happy about the incident. After the birth of the first child she has refused to return to matrimonial home and at the intervention of elders she rejoined the matrimonial home at Bangalore, however her attitude and behavior had not changed. It is also averred that the respondent has filed M.C. Petition No. 742/2002 for judicial separation, later the same has been withdrawn as the appellant was in good terms with him for some time. 3. On 10.08.2007 in the presence of the friends of the respondent, she has refused to offer coffee to him and slapped the respondent. It is pleaded that on 08.12.2006 she gave birth to a female child and left the matrimonial home on 29.12.2006 without informing the respondent and after the intervention of the elders she returned back to the matrimonial home. It is pleaded that on 08.12.2006 she gave birth to a female child and left the matrimonial home on 29.12.2006 without informing the respondent and after the intervention of the elders she returned back to the matrimonial home. It is further pleaded that the appellant has filed complaint 17.8.2007 against the respondent for demand of dowry, the same is registered as Crime No.155/2007 which has ended in ‘B’ Report. 4. The appellant has entered appearance before the Family Court and filed the statement of objections. The appellant has admitted the relationship between the parties and birth of children, she has admitted that they were living happily in Bangalore for some time, however she has emphatically denied the averments of cruelty and desertion made in the petition. It is averred that all the marriage expenses were borne by her parents and he has given Rs.2.00 lakhs cash, 250 gms gold and Rs.25,000/-for purchase of household articles. The respondent and his family members have started demanding more dowry, started ill-treating, harassing using unparliamentary words against her and made her to work as a maid servant. It is also averred that the respondent was in the habit of coming home late and sometimes he refused to take food and used to quarrel with the appellant without any reason and also manhandled her on many occasions. 5. It is also averred that the appellant has performed the duties of a wife, however at the insistence of mother-in-law and sister of the respondent, the respondent used to cause mental cruelty, the respondent stopped eating food in the home and used to come late night he used to open the door by using the key from outside and some days he never came home. The appellant came to know that the respondent has married another lady viz., Nandini and he is residing with her at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore. It is pleaded that she has not deserted the respondent and subjected him to any kind of cruelty as alleged in the petition. 6. The Family Court recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellant examined herself as RW.1 and another witnesses as RW.2 and produced Exs.R1 to R30. The respondent examined himself as PW.1 and produced Exs.P1 to P13. It is pleaded that she has not deserted the respondent and subjected him to any kind of cruelty as alleged in the petition. 6. The Family Court recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellant examined herself as RW.1 and another witnesses as RW.2 and produced Exs.R1 to R30. The respondent examined himself as PW.1 and produced Exs.P1 to P13. The Family Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties vide judgment dated 17.03.2016 allowed the petition on the ground of cruelty and dismissed on the ground of desertion. In the aforesaid factual matrix the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and the birth of the children. It is submitted that very few instances of cruelty are alleged and the same are not substantiated with proper evidence, however Family Court has erroneously come to conclusion that the respondent has proved the grounds of cruelty and dissolved the marriage. He further submits that the Family Court has recorded finding that the appellant has filed false criminal case against the respondent which has resulted in filing of ‘B’ Report and there is no challenge to the same. The Family Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective as the police have recorded the statement of the parties that they have compromised the dispute between them, hence ‘B’ Report has been filed. It is also submitted that the Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record that the respondent has married one Nandini and begetted a female child and they are residing in Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore. 8. It is contended that the address found in the Birth Certificate of the child and the address found in the sale deed dated 18.02.2016, are one and the same, hence inference can be drawn that the respondent has married another lady and staying with her. It is further contended that no independent witness has been examined by the respondent to substantiate the grounds of cruelty as the appellant in her cross examination has denied all the allegations of cruelty. It is the husband who is alleging cruelty and he is required to prove the same independently and not on the stray admissions. These aspects are not properly appreciated by the Family Court, which has resulted in giving erroneous finding. It is the husband who is alleging cruelty and he is required to prove the same independently and not on the stray admissions. These aspects are not properly appreciated by the Family Court, which has resulted in giving erroneous finding. It is also contended that the Family Court has erred in giving finding that the appellant has not taken care of her mother-in-law and she has not attended the funeral ceremony which has caused mental cruelty, as the mother-in-law was residing in her native place and the couple were in Bangalore. 9. He submits that the Family Court has given finding that there is no cohabitation between the parties from 2002 is contrary to the evidence on record as the second child was born on 8.12.2006 and further finding that the appellant has filed civil suit against the respondent indicates that the appellant has subjected the respondent to cruelty. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has started living with another lady by deserting the appellant, hence she has no other option but to file the suit for partition. He also contends that the Family Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent has proved the grounds of cruelty, contrary to the pleading and evidence on record and sought to allow the appeal. 10. He further contended that except oral statements of the respondent, no documentary evidence is placed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty. The pendency of the criminal proceedings in the absence of any decision, cannot be termed as cruelty. In support of his contention he relies on the following decisions : a. Neelam Kumar vs Dayarani (2010) 13 SCC 298 b. Mangyakarasi vs M. Yuvaraj (2020) 3 SCC 786 c. Rani Narasimha Sastry vs Rani Suneela Rani (2020) 18 SCC 247 . 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant was indifferent in attitude from day one, she was quarrelsome, used to abuse the respondent and his family members and on one occasion she has picked up quarrel with mother-in-law and thrown the utensils. It is submitted that the she has left the matrimonial home with her baggage and on apology by her father she has rejoined the matrimonial home, which has caused mental cruelty on the respondent, hence he has filed a petition seeking judicial separation. It is submitted that the she has left the matrimonial home with her baggage and on apology by her father she has rejoined the matrimonial home, which has caused mental cruelty on the respondent, hence he has filed a petition seeking judicial separation. However, the same has been withdrawn on the good conduct of the appellant. It is further submitted that on 29.12.2006 without informing anybody she left the matrimonial home and only at the intervention of well wishers she rejoined. 12. On 17.08.2007 she has filed false criminal case alleging dowry demand and the same has ended in filing of 'B' report, she has also filed suit for partition these acts of the appellant has caused mental cruelty to the respondent. It is also submitted that the respondent has pleaded and proved the grounds of cruelty before the Family Court. The Family Court on proper appreciation of evidence on record has given detailed finding that the respondent has proved the ground of cruelty and dissolved the marriage. He further submits that the appellant has filed three cases against the respondent, which itself amounts to cruelty and made serious allegation of adulterous life of the respondent without any basis and she has neither taken care of the mother of the respondent, nor she attended the funeral ceremony; these acts amount to cruelty. 13. He also submits that in cross-examination of RW.1 she admits that she has quarreled with the respondent on the issue of adulterous life and she admitted that the respondent has no bad habits, she has also admitted that she has not filed any criminal case against one Nandini, she also admits that the said Nandini is a relative of her sister-in-law. She admitted that one Komala has informed her about the marriage of the respondent with Nandini and she further informed that they have married in Temple, she further admits that she never questioned Nandini regarding alleged marriage. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the finding recorded by the Family Court does not call for any interference in the present appeal as the appellant has admitted the cruelty in her cross-examination and seeks to dismiss the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR Vs. BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR (2021) 3 SCC 742 . 14. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR Vs. BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR (2021) 3 SCC 742 . 14. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and perused the material on record. The relationship between the parties and birth of the children is not disputed. The respondent has alleged that the appellant was in the habit of abusing the appellant and his mother, she has insulted and humiliated them in the presence of other family members and friends. She picked up quarrel and has thrown the utensils on her mother-in-law and with the intervention of well wishers she used to behave normally for some days and again she used to pick up quarrel for silly reasons. It is alleged that she has filed criminal case in Crime No.155/2007 and police have filed ‘B’ Report and she has made reckless allegation of adultery against the respondent. The aforementioned allegations are pleaded and the same are reiterated in the affidavit evidence of PW.1. In cross-examination PW.1 has sticked on to the stand taken in the pleading. 15. On meticulous appreciation of pleading and evidence on record, it can be fairly inferred that the allegations of cruelty are vague as no specific instances of cruelty are pointed out by substantiating and by adducing independent witnesses. In the absence of examination of any independent witness or of family members who were present at the time of those incidents narrated as ground of cruelty, it would be difficult for this Court, to rely on the self testimony of the respondent. The appellant in her statement of objections has emphatically denied the instances of cruelty alleged by the respondent. The allegations pertaining to behaviourial pattern of the respondent are spread over from 1999 to 2009. It is admitted that two children are born out of the wedlock i.e., on 1.11.2000 and 08.12.2006. If the allegations of cruelty are so serious the parties to the proceedings would not have continued their relationship so long. 16. It is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad, (2007) 3 SCC 136 wherein at para 9 it is held as follows : 9. “10. The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. 16. It is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad, (2007) 3 SCC 136 wherein at para 9 it is held as follows : 9. “10. The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, 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, one has to see what are the probabilities in a 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 because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression ‘cruelty’ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. In cases where there is no direct evidence, courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression ‘cruelty’ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [ (1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60 : AIR 1988 SC 121 ] .)” [A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 , pp. 28-29, paras 10-11.] “12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be ‘grave and weighty’ so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. 13. The court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. 14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. 14. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to matrimonial court. (See N.G. Dastane (Dr.) v. S. Dastane [ (1975) 2 SCC 326 : AIR 1975 SC 1534 ] .)” [A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 , pp. 28-29, paras 10-11.] 17. Keeping in mind the above enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be fairly inferred that the alleged instances of cruelty are usual wear and tear of the marital life. These aspects have not been properly appreciated by the Family Court which has resulted in giving erroneous finding that the respondent has proved the ground of cruelty. The respondent has specifically pleaded that the appellant has not taken care of the mother-in-law when she was suffering from cancer and she has not attended the funeral ceremony, which amounts to cruelty. 18. It is admitted that the mother-in-law of the appellant was residing in her village and she has passed away in the same place. Hence attaching much importance for not attending the funeral ceremony by the appellant is perverse as the appellant has continued the matrimonial relationship with the respondent even after the death of the respondent’s mother. 18. It is admitted that the mother-in-law of the appellant was residing in her village and she has passed away in the same place. Hence attaching much importance for not attending the funeral ceremony by the appellant is perverse as the appellant has continued the matrimonial relationship with the respondent even after the death of the respondent’s mother. The Family Court has given a finding that the appellant has made reckless allegation against the respondent that he has married one Nandini they have begetted a female child and that they are residing in Mahalakshmi Layout. The respondent has denied the said allegations in his cross-examination. The Family Court has erred in relying on stray admissions of RW.1 and has come to the conclusion that the appellant has made allegation of adultery without proving the same. The Family Court has failed to appreciate that it is the respondent who is required to discharge the burden of proving the grounds of cruelty based on the pleading and by adducing the cogent evidence. 19. The reliance on the appellant’s evidence and holding it against her to say that the respondent has proved cruelty is contrary to the settled principle of law. The respondent has specifically pleaded and deposed in his evidence about the filing of cases against him by the appellant. On perusal of the material on record it is evident that the criminal case filed against the respondent has ended in filing of ‘B’ report based on the compromise entered into between the parties. The Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record, which has resulted in giving perverse finding. 20. It will be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NARASIMHA SASTRY V. SUNEELA RANI, (2020) 18 SCC 247 wherein at para 13 it is held has follows : "13. In the present case, 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. In the prosecution under Section 498-A 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. In the prosecution under Section 498-A 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 the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court [Narsimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 714] made the following observation in para 15 : (Rani Narsimha Sastry case [Narsimha Sastry v. Suneela Rani, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 714] , SCC OnLine Hyd) “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.” The above observation of the High Court cannot be approved. It is true that it is open for anyone to file complaint or lodge prosecution for redressal of 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 IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on the husband. As per the pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14-8-2005, they lived together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are separately living for more than a decade now." 21. Keeping in mind the above settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the allegation that the filing of criminal case by the respondent wife against the appellant ipso facto amounts to mental cruelty cannot be accepted. It is admitted that the jurisdictional court has not recorded any finding that the initiation of criminal proceedings is false and malicious one. Insofar as initiation of subsequent criminal case, the same is pending adjudication and no finding is recorded by the jurisdictional court. therefore mere filing of the complaint against the husband and initiation of criminal proceedings ipso facto does not amount to cruelty. 22. Insofar as initiation of subsequent criminal case, the same is pending adjudication and no finding is recorded by the jurisdictional court. therefore mere filing of the complaint against the husband and initiation of criminal proceedings ipso facto does not amount to cruelty. 22. Insofar as filing of the civil suit by the appellant for seeking partition of the property, the same is also pending before the Court for adjudication. The Family Court has erred in appreciating the pleading and evidence on record insofar as the aforesaid allegations of cruelty therefore has resulted in incorrect finding. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2016 passed in M.C.No.371/2009 is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed.