ORDER : 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mehsana in RCA no.40/22. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visnagar in Hindu Marriage Petition no.4/21. 2. Earlier the appellant had preferred Civil Revision Application no.379/23 challenging the order but by an order dated 5.10.2023, the same was converted into Second appeal. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the provisions of law have not been considered in proper perspective while deciding HMP no.4/21 and RCA no.40/22. The issue in question has not been rightly interpreted by the both the courts on the ground of suppression and further submitted that the provisions of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has not been interpreted in its true sense when more particularly with the fact that the respondent has voluntarily abandoned the appellant by not residing with him. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the issue of cruelty alleged against the appellant has not been rightly considered by the court in view of the fact that the appellant had been acquitted in Criminal Case no.7529/18 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(1) of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that learned Trial Court in view of judgment of acquittal in Criminal Case was not right in rejecting the application under Section 9 of the Act which was filed for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. HMP no.30/21 was filed by the husband, the present appellant under Section 9 of the Act praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visnagar rejected the prayer, wherein while answering the issues framed at Exh.11 had considered that the applicant could prove that he is legally wedded husband of the opponent while issue no.2 was raised to the effect that as to whether the applicant proves that the opponent has without reasonable excuse withdrawn herself from the society of the applicant. The learned Trial Court has answered the same in negative and the burden which was laid down on the opponent to prove that after solemnizing the marriage, the applicant has treated the opponent with mental as well as physical cruelty, the learned Trial Court while answering the issue in affirmative has rejected the prayer of decree of restitution of conjugal rights of the applicant observing that he is not entitled to get the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 6. The marriage was solemnized on 11.3.2012 at Chitrasani, Taluka Palanpur. The certificate of marriage was produced on record at Mark 4/1. In view of the deposition and documentary evidence, the marriage was proved to be solemnized between the parties. The affidavit of the appellant produced at Exh.12 was considered and on 16.9.2018 the appellant had left the respondent along with the minor daughter. 7. The respondent wife in her written statement had pleaded that the applicant is an alcoholic and in a state of intoxication, he was beating the respondent. She has filed the criminal case against him. 8. The learned Trial Court while considering and discussing the meaning of word “cruelty” observed as; “The quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another’s pain; mercilessness; hardheartedness.” The learned Trial Court observed that the burden to prove the said issue was on the respondent and the respondent wife by way of written reply as well as the evidence on record as well as the supporting evidence has proved that the husband was cruel to her in the state of intoxication. The learned Trial Court Judge has observed that the appellant has not objected the say of the respondent. The FIR was placed on record. Considering the evidence as well as the documents produced, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that that the appellant had tortured the respondent physically and mentally and therefore, has committed mental cruelty on her. 9. While dealing with the issue under Section 9 of the Act for the prayer of restitution of conjugal rights, the learned Trial Court has observed that the respondent wife has filed HMP no.4/21 to get the decree of divorce which was allowed on 14.11.2022 and since the divorce was granted, the court observed that no order as to conjugal rights could be passed in his favour and therefore, rejected the petition. 10. 10. It is required to be noted that RCA no.40/22 was preferred by the husband under Section 28 of the Act challenging the order dated 14.11.2022 which was passed in HMP no.4/21 under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. The order of rejecting the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights has not been challenged before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court while dealing with the aspect of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) has referred to the judgment in the case of Debananda v. Smt. Kakumoni, 2022-0-Supreme (SC) 139, Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi, 2010-0-AIR (SCW) 1564 and also Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, air 1988 SC 121 . 11. The learned Appellate Court has dealt with the facts of the case and while appreciating the evidence on record, had observed the fact of mental and physical cruelty. The evidence of the appellant being an alcoholic and physically assaulting the wife as well as alleging against the wife on her character was found to be the cruelty. In such circumstances, it was observed that it would be difficult to lead the life together. The observation has also been made about the helpline phone call made to 181 Abhayam on 7.6.2018 and FIR was registered at “A” Division Police Station, Mehsana on 18.9.2018. Criminal Case no.7529/18 was proceeded before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana where the appellant came to be acquitted. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that the very fact of acquittal in Criminal Case proves that the cruelty has not been proved and since being acquitted in Criminal Case, learned advocate submitted that no case of cruelty could be found and therefore, the order of decree of divorce is required to be set aside. 13. The learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that the proceedings before the criminal court and civil court are absolutely independent. The standard of proof in both the courts are different. In criminal case proceedings, the allegations are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt while in civil proceedings, it is on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 13. The learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that the proceedings before the criminal court and civil court are absolutely independent. The standard of proof in both the courts are different. In criminal case proceedings, the allegations are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt while in civil proceedings, it is on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The evidence as was noted and appreciated was that from the date of marriage i.e. 11.3.2012, the wife has been residing with the husband and on 14.6.2016, she had given birth to a daughter and had left the matrimonial house on 16.9.2018 and the petition for divorce was filed on 18.2.2021, the wife because of the cruelty of the husband, was forced to leave the matrimonial house. Both the courts have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no reason to entertain the Second Appeal nor any substantial question of law has been found to be raised. The prayer of restitution of conjugal rights was rejected by the learned Trial Court which has not been challenged by the present appellant. The wife suffered cruelty at the hands of the husband. She was forced to leave the matrimonial life. The criminal complaint was also filed. It appears that both the courts have rightly granted the decree of divorce and declined the prayer of restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant had treated the wife with cruelty and she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. 14. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this court does not find any perversity or illegality with the orders of both the courts. The decree of divorce which has been passed is on sound principle of law appreciating the evidence on record. This court does not find any reason to entertain the Second Appeal and hence, the same stands dismissed. Connected Civil Application also stands dismissed.