JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. H-64/2016 allowing the petition for grant of decree of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The facts are that the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff were married on 30-04-2007 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and from their wedlock, two children were born namely Akshat & Rishi. On account of aggressive behavior of the appellant/wife and also the appellant/wife has developed relationship with one namely Deepak, the respondent/husband filed an application for divorce before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court framed as many as 4 issues and after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for decree of divorce. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the respondent/plaintiff and his parents were used to treat her with cruelty and were mentally harassing her. The respondent/husband ousted the appellant from the matrimonial home. She was forced to live separately by the respondent and his family members. He further submits that she had no relation with the Deepak as alleged by the respondent/plaintiff. Despite the pleadings in the application filed before the trial court, when there was a reference of Deepak Dubey, but he has not been examined by the respondent, however, Deepak Dubey has been examined as a defense witness. It is clear that the false allegations have been made against the appellant. The Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the appellant is always wiling to live with her husband and during counseling she stated that she wants to live but recorded erroneous and vague finding. Therefore the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2018. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/s submits that both the children are residing along with the respondent/husband. The first child namely Akshat is suffering from Autism and is not able to speak and is not developing like a regular child and requires special care for which the respondent is providing the continuous treatment and he and his mother are taking care of him. The first child namely Akshat is suffering from Autism and is not able to speak and is not developing like a regular child and requires special care for which the respondent is providing the continuous treatment and he and his mother are taking care of him. He further submit that while studying for B.Lib, the appellant was in contact with a man namely Deepak Dubey and at many instances, she was caught talking to him and meeting him and when the same was objected by the respondent she threatens to burn herself to death. In September 2014, after an argument, she left the children and started living with her brother. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant does not want to live with the respondent and many times during the counselling has accepted that she wants to live separately. However, when the divorce/dissolution of marriage application was brought by the respondent, the application under Section 9 of HMA, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and also the application for custody of children was moved by the appellant and no custody or even meeting with children or her husband was attempted by the appellant before this. Due to the act done by the appellant, the respondent's life has become miserable and there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and therefore the respondent's application for dissolution of marriage was allowed by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence available in the case that the respondent/husband has succeeded in proving cruelty done on him. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mayadevi Vs. Jagdish Prasad reported in (2007) 3 SCC 136 wherein it was held that if the allegations of cruelty were established and, in several instances, if were noted, it becomes a ground for dissolution of marriage. He further placed his reliance in the case of Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni, and also in the case of Shilpa Sailesh V. Varun Sreenivasan, reported in (2023 (6) Scale 402. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records as well as the impugned judgment and decree. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mayadevi (supra) has held in paragraph 9 as under:- "The expression 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Act. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records as well as the impugned judgment and decree. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mayadevi (supra) has held in paragraph 9 as under:- "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 willful 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." 8. A view has been taken from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni has repeatedly narrated that the Court must also keep in mind that home which is meant to be a happy and loveable place in live, becomes a source of misery and agony where the partners fight. When there are children, they become direct victims of the said fight though they may practically have no role in the breakdown of marriage and they suffer irreparable harm. 9. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would made it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wrong party cannot reasonably be asked to put such conduct and continue to live with the other party. 10. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2002. The situation must be such that the wrong party cannot reasonably be asked to put such conduct and continue to live with the other party. 10. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2002. Disputes started between the parties after the birth of their child. The child is suffering from Autism and requires special care, for which the respondent is providing the continuous treatment and he is also living with him and contrary to this, the appellant/ wife is denying for taking care of her child. The appellant/wife lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband and his family members for torturing and beating her and also for dowry demand before the Mahila Thana, Raipur (Ex.P/11) and when it was rejected. Subsequently, she filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of CrPC against her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law before the JMFC, Raipur (Ex.P/8) raising the ground that the husband of the appellant treated her with cruelty and also her brother-in-law tried to establish physical relation with her. However, the criminal complaint filed under Section 156(3) was ultimately rejected by the Trial Court on 18.07.2016 on merits acquitting the respondent husband. 11. It reflects from the statement of the Deepak Dubey (DW/3) that he admitted that the mobile No. 7247477356 which has been provided by the Bhishma Kumar is registered in his name on which he used to talk with the appellant (Lekhan Sahu). He had relations with the appellant. He is working as clerk in Pt. Sunderlal Sharma University and in no way connected with the treatment of child. 12. Upon reading of the statement of the respondent/husband, it reflects that both the appellant/wife and Deepak Dubey used to talk on phone at night. On one instance, his younger son said, "Mummy, Deepak uncle and I were roaming in the garden". When the appellant/wife was questioned by the respondent/husband about the same, she started acting disrespectfully and in disrespectful manner and since then the misbehavior with the him as well as his children started. Despite knowing that the respondent/husband and his family members did not like him, he kept in contact with the appellant. 13. When the appellant/wife was questioned by the respondent/husband about the same, she started acting disrespectfully and in disrespectful manner and since then the misbehavior with the him as well as his children started. Despite knowing that the respondent/husband and his family members did not like him, he kept in contact with the appellant. 13. The complaint filed by the appellant/wife under Section 156(3) (Ex.P 7 & 8) against the respondent and his family members raising the ground of harassment, in which she has not recorded the statement of any of the family member in the Court, neither any evidence related to harassment was produced by her. However, the criminal complaint filed under Section 156 (3) was ultimately rejected by the trial Court stating that there are differences in the statements of appellant and a baseless and false complaint lodged against the respondent and his family members. As such the allegation made in the complaint stands disproved. 14. It is the case of the present case that there was aggressiveness and short-tempered attitude in the behavior of the appellant and she harassed the respondent and also denied to do any type of household chores and always used to talk on mobile for long leaving her sons and other members of the family. It is also clear from the statement of the Deepak Dubey that he had relations with the appellant. At many instances, she was caught talking to him and meeting him by her son. The appellant before the trial Court has admitted the fact that while studying for B.Lib, the appellant was in contact with a man named Deepak Dubey and the dispute arose because of Deepak Dubey. Thus, it is clear from the evidence that the appellant is living separately due to the appellant's relationship with the Deepak Dubey because of which dispute arose between them. Further, the appellant used to meet Deepak Dubey in the name of her child's treatment. During the counselling, she stated she wants to live with the respondent, But when the respondent/husband objected the same, she could have given up the contact with the Deepak. In September, 2014, after an argument, she left the children and started living with her brother. If she is voluntarily residing in her maternal home without any sufficient reason, then it cannot be said that the respondent has neglected/refused to maintain the appellant. In September, 2014, after an argument, she left the children and started living with her brother. If she is voluntarily residing in her maternal home without any sufficient reason, then it cannot be said that the respondent has neglected/refused to maintain the appellant. All these acts of the appellant/wife against the respondent/ husband amounted to irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 15. As such from the evidence adduced and the conduct of the appellant/ wife coupled with preponderance of probability, it stands proved that the respondent/husband had never treated the appellant/wife with cruelty and she had left her matrimonial home without just and reasonable cause and is living at her parent’s house. On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial situation is such that the wrong party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. Without any cogent reason, the appellant has filed complaint against the respondent/husband with regard to harassment which amounts to cruelty upon the respondent. 16. In view of the above, the Trial Court committed no illegality or impropriety in passing the award. The judgment and decree passed by Second Additional District Judge Balodabazar in Civil Suit No. H-64/2016 dated 12-12-2018 is affirmed. 17. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 18. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 19. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.