JUDGMENT : (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the applicant/husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 24/09/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.04-A/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) has dismissed the application filed by the applicant seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955. Parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the trial Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the applicant/husband on 05/02/2019 filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, alleging inter-alia, that his marriage with the non-applicant/wife was solemnized on 18/02/2002 in accordance with their customs and out of their wedlock, two daughters namely Awneet Kaur and Ranpreet Kaur have born, who are living with the non-applicant/wife. According to the applicant, his wife is a short tempered lady and used to get annoyed oftenly, if things are not happening as per her wish and always used to disrespect with his parents while using filthy languages and used to pressurized him to live separately from his parents, who are the old aged parents. It is alleged in the petition that she physically and mentally tortured him and his parents in the year 2013 and, it is alleged further that a suggestion was given by her father to live on his another house which is situated at Sarthipara (Darripara) and, on the basis of the said suggestion, a meeting was convened by his community and as per the decision taken therein, his wife and he started living separately in the month of December, 2013 alongwith the daughters on his said another house, but despite of that, her behaviour was not changed and instead became more cruel with him. It is alleged further that because of her cruel behaviour, he filed a petition for divorce which was, however, dismissed on his non-prosecution on 15/02/2016. It is alleged further that because of her cruel behaviour, he filed a petition for divorce which was, however, dismissed on his non-prosecution on 15/02/2016. It is alleged further that he is living separately since the month of December, 2013 and contended further that after the dismissal of his claim in 2015, a false report was not only lodged by his wife in the year 2016 against him, his parents and brother, but a false complaint was also lodged against his brother as well for the termination of his government job. It is the further contention of the applicant that his wife has kept both the daughters and they were not permitted to meet him and instead projecting a bad image of him, so as to deprive him from his love and affections towards his daughters, therefore, he has been constrained to file this petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955. 3. While denying the aforesaid allegations, it is pleaded by the non-applicant/ wife that immediately after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry which was made by her husband and in-laws and, contended further that when she has given a girl child, they started misbehaving her and was being assaulted while using filthy words and wanted to drive her out from the matrimonial home, so as to get the solemnization of his second marriage. It is contended further that owing to the alleged ill treatment, she lodged as many as three complaints at Police Station Kawardha, but has withdrawn the same only for considering the welfare of the daughters. It is contended further that her husband was involved in many businesses and 8 to 9 servants are working in his shop at the monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- and, income of her husband is more than Rs.1 Lakh per month, yet he is giving the maintenance amount of Rs.9,200/- per month only which is insufficient for the education of her daughters. It is contended further that in the month of July, 2014, he left her and started living with his parents and it is denied specifically that she lodged the false report against her brother and in-laws and has lodged the false complaint against his brother. The petition as made is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. It is contended further that in the month of July, 2014, he left her and started living with his parents and it is denied specifically that she lodged the false report against her brother and in-laws and has lodged the false complaint against his brother. The petition as made is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. The applicant has examined himself in support of his claim, while non-applicant has examined herself in rebuttal. 5. After evaluating the evidence led by the parties, it was held by the trial Court that the applicant has failed to establish the fact that he was maltreated by his wife or has committed cruelty upon him and, in consequence, dismissed the claim and, being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this appeal. 6. Smt. Anubhuti Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the non-applicant has not committed the cruelty upon her husband is apparently contrary to the materials available on record. It is contended further that on the basis of the false report lodged by her in connection with Crime No.184/2016 (Ex.A-1), not only the applicant/husband, but his father and brother was also arrested, however, without considering the same, the trial Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the claim holding that no cruelty as alleged has been committed by his wife. It is contended further that since both are living separately for about 10 years, therefore, the alleged marriage has virtually been broken down and in such circumstances, the Court below ought to have granted a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955. 7. On the other hand, Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 9. The question which involves for determination of this appeal is, as to, “whether the non-applicant/wife has committed cruelty upon her husband entitling him for the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ?” 10. According to the applicant (AW-1), his wife, the non-applicant, is a short tempered lady and would get annoyed whenever things are not happening as per her wish. According to the applicant (AW-1), his wife, the non-applicant, is a short tempered lady and would get annoyed whenever things are not happening as per her wish. It is stated by him that they are living separately since the year 2013 and no co-habitation was made since then and deposed further that even upon living separately from his parents, as per the suggestion of her father, the behavior of his wife was not changed and she had lodged a false report on 27/05/2016 (Ex.A-5) against him, his father and brother, owing to which, a final report (Ex.A-1) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and, in pursuance thereof, he and his father was arrested on 02/06/2016, while his brother on 27/05/2016. He deposed further that a false report was also lodged against his brother for the termination of his government job. In his cross-examination, it was denied by him that they started misbehaving with the non-applicant when she has given a girl child and has denied further that they have been acquitted in connection with the said crime while influencing the witnesses, when a suggestion was made to him. 11. Non-applicant (NAW-1) has deposed that soon after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty owing to demand of dowry made by her husband and in-laws. She deposed further that her in-laws wanted a male child, but when she has given a girl child, they started misbehaving with her and have tried to driven her out from the matrimonial home, so that, they could solemnize second marriage of her husband. It was stated further that she lodged several reports when she was assaulted by her husband and in-laws, but in all the occasions, the same were withdrawn while considering the future of her daughters. It is stated further that when she was assaulted and ill-treated, a meeting was convened and based upon the resolution made therein, she was shifted to the another house of the applicant alongwith him in the month of January, 2014, but her husband lived there only for 7 to 8 months and thereafter he returned to his parents’ house and has filed a petition for divorce in January, 2015, which was dismissed on his non-prosecution on 15/02/2016. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she lodged no report with regard to the demand of dowry made by the applicant and her in-laws, nor has lodged any report that she was maltreated when she has given a girl child. She stated further in her cross-examination that there are 5 to 6 cases, which are pending in Court and all the proceedings have been initiated by her, except the proceedings of divorce which has been initiated by her husband. 12. From perusal of the testimonies of both the parties, it appears that owing to certain disputes which occurred between them, a meeting was convened and in view of the resolution passed therein, they started living separately in another house which was situated at Sarthipara (Darripara) at Kawardha, but it cannot be said that it was done due to demand of dowry made by the applicant or by his parents, as no report to this effect has been lodged by the non-applicant in order to establish the same, nor could it be said that they shifted to another house as brother of the applicant had tried to outrage her modesty, as held by the trial Court. It is to be noted at this juncture that neither the report is filed in this regard nor any plea to this effect has been made by the non-applicant in her written statement. The finding of the trial Court in this regard is therefore, unwanted and liable to be and is hereby set aside. 13. It reveals further from their testimonies that after the dismissal of the applicant’s earlier claim seeking dissolution of marriage on non-prosecution on 15/02/2016, a report/FIR (Ex.A-5) was lodged by the non-applicant on 27/05/2016 against her husband and in Page laws, owing to which, the final report (Ex.A-1) was submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kabirdham for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. It reveals further that in the alleged crime, the applicant and his father was arrested on 02/06/2016, as evidenced by alleged arrest memos, marked as Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-4, while his brother Charanjeet on 27/05/2016 vide arrest memo (Ex.A-3). It appears further that they all have been acquitted for the alleged offences, though the copy of the same has not been placed on record, but the said fact was admittedly revealed from their testimonies. It appears further that they all have been acquitted for the alleged offences, though the copy of the same has not been placed on record, but the said fact was admittedly revealed from their testimonies. Levelling the alleged allegations as such would, thus, cause a mental cruelty upon them as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247 . In the said matter, a person had undergone a trial for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC based upon the allegations leveled against him by his wife, wherein, he was acquitted. In that factual scenario, it was held that merely on filing of a complaint or lodging a proceeding for redressal of his or her grievances and for lodging an FIR would not be ipso facto be treated as cruelty, but a person who has faced the trial and acquitted subsequently, then it would cause a mental cruelty upon him. Relevant observation made therein at para 13 reads as under :- “13. …………. 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 on the husband. As per the pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are separately living for more than a decade now.” 14. In the instant matter, as observed hereinabove, the non-applicant though has stated that soon after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty because of demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws and was assaulted and ill-treated when she has given a girl child, but in order to substantiate the said fact, no document, much less the report to this effect, has been produced by her. It, thus, appears to be of her false allegations which were leveled against her husband and in-laws. It, thus, appears to be of her false allegations which were leveled against her husband and in-laws. In so far as lodging the FIR (Ex.A-5) by her on 27/05/2016 against her husband and in-laws, i.e. father-in-law and brother-in-law, which led to the initiation of proceedings under Sections 294, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, is concerned, the same has ultimately been found to be acquittal of theirs. Therefore, leveling the allegations as such, based upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, would certainly cause a mental cruelty not only upon her husband, but also against her in-laws. 15. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the testimonies of both the parties, that they are living separately for about 10 years and their marriage, solemnized on 18/02/2002 has, thus, virtually broken down and, therefore, it appears to be a dead for all purposes and cannot be revived. It is true that it would not be a ground for the dissolution of marriage as per the provision prescribed under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, but, recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 497, has held that irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, but it would cause mental cruelty to both the parties. Relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 17, 20(xiv) and 21 read as under:- “17. ………… Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty”. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 20(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 21. ……….The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. ..…...” 16. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred matters vis-à-vis, the facts and circumstances of the case, as observed hereinabove, it is evident that the non-applicant/wife has not only committed mental cruelty upon her husband, but has also found to be living separately for about 10 years and would cause cruelty in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 24/09/2022 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Civil Suit No.04-A/2019 is hereby set aside and the applicant/husband is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, 1955. No order as to cost(s). A decree be drawn accordingly.