JUDGMENT : (Goutam Bhaduri, J.) : Heard. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30/11/2021 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. Case No. 124/2019, whereby the divorce sought by the wife/appellant on various grounds, was dismissed. Hence, the wife is in appeal before this Court. 2. Brief facts as pleaded by the wife is that the parties got married on 11/05/2005. It was a love marriage and was against the wishes of the family members, therefore, there had been a mental cleavage between the family members for acceptance of marriage. The wife/appellant contended that after the marriage she joined her matrimonial home, but because the marriage was not accepted, the family members of the husband/respondent did not behave well, however, it continued. Subsequently, the husband/respondent stopped working at his place of job which led to frustration to husband. In a result, the wife joined the job, but it was objected by the husband. Further, on trivial issues, the quarrels erupted between the parties and the wife left the job. The wife/appellant further contended that to raise income she started conducting tuition to the students and even before the students too, the character of wife/appellant was assassinated and perforced the wife to stop the tuition classes. She contended that because of fact that she performed the love marriage, she was not able to divulge these facts to her parents. In course of her stay, a baby girl was born, but after the birth of the child, the behavior of the husband/respondent became even more aggravated as it was expected by him that a baby boy would be born. She further contended that she joined the school to earn for family and for various reasons in performance of official duties, when she used to come late, the husband/respondent used to allege that she has illicit relations with the Principal and other male members of the school staff. In consequence thereof, she was physically assaulted and eventually she was thrown out of the house on 09/04/2015. Therefore, on these various grounds of cruelty, the divorce was sought for by the wife. 3. In consequence thereof, she was physically assaulted and eventually she was thrown out of the house on 09/04/2015. Therefore, on these various grounds of cruelty, the divorce was sought for by the wife. 3. The husband/respondent, on the contrary denied adverse allegations and stated that the marriage was accepted by the families of both the parties and before the marriage itself the husband/respondent used to work as a software Engineer and by virtue of his job, he used to cater the needs of the family. He denied the allegations that since he was not working, the wife was forced to work. The allegation of physical assault was also denied. In the additional pleading, the husband/respondent stated that the wife was under the influence of her father, therefore, she did not want to come back, and he has not done any mischief or cruelty towards the wife and he wanted to stay with the wife. 4. The learned Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, framed four issues. The findings on issues of cruelty and desertion were negated, which resulted into dismissal of petition filed by the wife/appellant. Hence, this appeal by the wife/appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife would submit that no evidence was led by the husband to prove his case. He would further submit that the pleading and statement of wife/appellant would show the nature of cruelty which was meted out to the wife and the cruelty cannot be disowned by the Family Court only for the reasons that no police report was made. He would further submit that in the matrimonial cases, nature and allegations are to be appreciated from the circumstances of the case which is not akin to a criminal case. He would further submit that in absence of any evidence by the husband, the evidence led by the appellant/wife should have been accepted and accordingly the decree of divorce should have been granted as the circumstances will lead to show that both the parties are not unhappy in living separately. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the entire evidence led by the wife would show that no cruelty was meted out and it was the normal wear and tear of the married life, which cannot be treated as mental cruelty for grant of divorce. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the entire evidence led by the wife would show that no cruelty was meted out and it was the normal wear and tear of the married life, which cannot be treated as mental cruelty for grant of divorce. The nature of evidence which has been led by the wife cannot be attributed towards the cruelty, even when the parties are residing separately. It is contended that irreparable breakdown of the marriage cannot be a ground for divorce. He placed his reliance in the matter of Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi, 2010 (4) SCC 476 and Neelam Kumar v. Dayarani, 2010 (13) SCC 298 and would submit that the judgment passed by the Family court is well merited and does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading and evidence available on record. 8. The wife/appellant on her behalf examined herself as PW1 and her father, Shri Sohan Lal Pincha as PW2. The order sheet dated 11/11/2021 of the Family Court would show that when the case was fixed for evidence, the husband/respondent has expressed that he does not want to adduce evidence. Therefore, the instant case would be solely dependent on the pleadings made before the Family Court and the statements from the wife/appellant’s side. 9. In order to explore the fact of allegations, we went though the pleadings and statements of the wife as well as of her father. The evidence of the parties would show that the date of marriage was 11/05/2005 which has not been disputed by the parties. It is also an admitted fact that both the parties have performed love marriage. 10. The wife in her pleading has alleged that after the marriage, while she joined her matrimonial home, she was not accepted as it was a love marriage. Subsequently, it was also alleged that after some time, the husband stopped her to go for the job and used to confine her into the house as he was doubting her character. Subsequently state of affairs continued for long period, but the act of the husband/respondent was not normal. In the meanwhile, the wife/appellant joined the services as teacher which was objected by the husband/respondent. Being so, she has to stop going school. Subsequently state of affairs continued for long period, but the act of the husband/respondent was not normal. In the meanwhile, the wife/appellant joined the services as teacher which was objected by the husband/respondent. Being so, she has to stop going school. Subsequently on trivial issues, the husband/respondent started to dispute and used to speak filthy abuses, and as such she was being mentally tortured. In order to meet out the expenses, the wife resorted to conducting tuition to cater their needs and in furtherance of that when the boys used to come for tuition, the husband/respondent used to assassinate the character of the wife before the students. The frequency of these activities get aggravated day by day and eventually the students who were coming for tuition also stopped to come, owing to that the wife/appellant was unable to meet out her expenses for the financial bottlenecking. She further stated that since her marriage was love marriage, therefore, she was not able to disclose these facts to her parents. She stated that because she had to work to augment the financial needs for survival, and when she wanted to join service, it was objected by the husband and as such, the matrimonial life became more difficult. 11. She stated that in the year 2009, a baby girl was born and after hearing the fact that baby girl was born, the behavior of the husband became more aggravated. Subsequently, she had to join the school and whenever, she used to come late for some official work, the husband used to assassinate the character of the wife. In consequence thereof, in the month of November, 2013, she was physically assaulted by the husband and eventually she was forcibly thrown out of the matrimonial house on 09/04/2015. In cross-examination of this witness, certain suggestions were made that her substantial studies after marriage was not objected, it was denied. She stated in her cross-examination that after the marriage when she joined the job, it was being interrupted for the reasons that the husband has not given consent for the same. In cross-examination of this witness, certain suggestions were made that her substantial studies after marriage was not objected, it was denied. She stated in her cross-examination that after the marriage when she joined the job, it was being interrupted for the reasons that the husband has not given consent for the same. Though she admitted the fact that she had not made any report about such assault, the nature of allegations which might have caused mental cruelty to the wife is not expected that the wife would go to the police and it cannot be held that mental cruelty in matrimonial life is required to be corroborated by police report. She admitted the fact in the cross-examination that though the husband wanted to keep her with him, she did not want to stay with him due to the allegations leveled by the husband. The primary allegation, in the cross-examination about assassination of character of the wife before the tuition students attaching the chastity on wife has not been rebutted. 12. Sohan Lal Pincha, father of the wife/appellant has been examined as PW2. Though certain suggestions were made to him that he being ailing, therefore, he wanted to keep her daughter, which was denied. He also admitted the fact that each and every allegations were not reported to him by the wife/appellant. 13. There is no evidence by the husband/respondent. The case is based on sole testimony of the wife and her father. The analysis of the statements would show that if the husband/respondent has stopped working and if the wife forced to join some service to cater their need for survival, in the eventuality of such objection by the husband naturally it would lead to financial bottle-necking which may affect the life and standard of living of the parties. There is no evidence that the husband was working. Therefore, the sole testimony of wife that the husband was not working and when the wife wanted to work, it was objected, appears to be more acceptable. There is no evidence that the husband was working. Therefore, the sole testimony of wife that the husband was not working and when the wife wanted to work, it was objected, appears to be more acceptable. While the wife was working and used to come some time late, the allegations that the husband used to assassinate the character of the wife and the allegations that when the wife started teaching the students in tuition at her home, the husband used to speak filthy abuses about character of wife, would naturally tarnish the image of the wife before the society specially before the students, and at their tender age they may loose respect for teacher. Further, it would cause mental cruelty to wife. Therefore, the husband by mere saying that he wanted to keep her wife back and children, cannot be given a preferential opinion and the continuous activities of the husband would dominate the track towards the cruelty. Accordingly, we hold that the wife/appellant was able to prove that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the husband. 14. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 30/11/2021 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in H.M.A. Case No. 124/2019 is set-aside. 15. In the result appeal is allowed, whereby the marriage dated 11/05/2005 in between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 16. A decree be drawn accordingly.