JUDGMENT : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. Heard Smt. K. Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act assailing the order dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.315 of 2004 filed under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. 3. Vide the said order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/husband. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 4. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner married the respondent on 03.05.1990 as per the Hindu Customs and Rites. After the marriage, they both started living together in the petitioner's father's own house at H.No.19-115, Gautham Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, along with the parents and brothers of the petitioner, which is a joint family. The petitioner is working as an Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk at South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The respondent’s parents live at Marredpally, Secunderabad, and the respondent used to visit her parents’ house very frequently and used to stay there for weeks together without any concern for the petitioner right from the beginning of marital life. 5(i) The petitioner was blessed with a daughter by name Sindhu Bharathi on 26-05-1991. After the birth of Sindhu Bharathi, the respondent started demanding the petitioner’s separation from the petitioner's parents and to live in a separate house, but the petitioner did not agree to break down the joint family, he being the eldest son. The respondent left the home in May, 1992, and never returned, in spite of the petitioner’s visit to their house, requesting her to join. The respondent used to provoke the petitioner by saying that he is a parasite on his parents and, does not have the guts to be independent and that he does not have self-respect and dignity. So, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 29.09.1993 calling upon the respondent to join him along with the child. Instead of complying with the notice, the respondent got issued a reply notice dated 11.10.1993, demanding a separate house to join back with all false allegations. So, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 29.09.1993 calling upon the respondent to join him along with the child. Instead of complying with the notice, the respondent got issued a reply notice dated 11.10.1993, demanding a separate house to join back with all false allegations. 5(ii) The attempts made by the petitioner’s Advocates of the in October 1993 for compromise failed since the respondent was not even willing to live in a separate house near to the house of petitioner’s parents. The relationship got further badly strained by the indifferent attitude shown by the respondent when the father of the petitioner died in June 1994. Though the respondent was informed, she did not bother to visit and console the petitioner. She did not even turn up on the 3 rd and 10 th day ceremony despite several requests made by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner’s father felt very bad when the respondent avoided attending the marriage of the petitioner's younger sister in February 1993. In July 1994, the petitioner visited the respondent’s house and requested her to join him in a separate house, but she bluntly refused and insulted the petitioner for not getting a share in the property before the death of the petitioner's father. The respondent showed the utmost cruelty and made the life of the petitioner miserable by creating a mental torture. The respondent is responsible for all the disturbances in the life of the petitioner and his family members. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner underwent the humiliation of loneliness and insult. At this point, a friendship happened between the petitioner and one lady by name Mrs. Aruna, who is a divorcee. Due to their physical relationship, Mrs. Aruna gave birth to a daughter named Sai Pranathi. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and behaved cruelly with the petitioner. In view of the above said circumstances, the petitioner was forced to file the present petition. 6. The respondent filed a counter before the trial Court stating that the petitioner admittedly developed illegal intimacy with a lady by name Mrs. Aruna and begot a child, namely Sai Pranathi, and started neglecting the respondent and her children. The petitioner having committed so many wrongs within the meaning of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is not entitled to any relief against this respondent. Aruna and begot a child, namely Sai Pranathi, and started neglecting the respondent and her children. The petitioner having committed so many wrongs within the meaning of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, is not entitled to any relief against this respondent. The respondent denied that she used to visit her parents’ house very frequently and used to stay for weeks without any concern for the petitioner. The petitioner is not concerned about his family, and never used to take care of the family. The petitioner has bad habits and used to come only late at nights. Later, the respondent came to know that he developed an illegitimate relationship with a woman called Aruna and the reason behind his late return to home neglecting his wife and children is due to such an illegitimate relationship. She further denied that she demanded for separation from the petitioner's parents and live in a separate house and that she never left home in May 1992 and never returned in spite of the petitioner's request. All the allegations made by the petitioner are false. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. On considering the material facts and evidence available on record, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that the trial court ought to have granted divorce on the basis of the allegations made against the appellant herein by the respondent in her pleadings. The respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, his mother, his sister and Aruna under Section 498-A and 494 IPC on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, East & North, Ranga Reddy and the trial Court failed to see that the respondent is bent upon sending the petitioner to prison on one or other pretext and proceedings relating to maintenance. The Trial Court ought to have noted the respondent’s conduct after filing the O.P. for divorce and M.C. by the respondent, which entitled the petitioner to get divorce on the grounds of cruelty. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: i) In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita , [ (2014) 16 SCC 34 ] and ii) In the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: i) In the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita , [ (2014) 16 SCC 34 ] and ii) In the case of Rani Narasimha Sastry Vs. Rani Suneela Rani , (2020) 18 SCC 247 Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition, which requires no interference from this Court and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja , [MANU/SC/0493/2017] (Civil Appeal No.10719 of 2013). Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. The un-disputed facts of the case are that the petitioner married the respondent on 03.05.1990 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, and during the wedlock, a girl, namely Sindhu Bharathi, was born on 26.05.1991 and a male child, namely Sai Charan, was born on 31.10.1995. There is also no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner developed illegal intimacy with one Mrs. Aruna, and out of the said intimacy, the said Aruna gave birth to a child named as Sai Pranathi. 12. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has narrated several instances in the petition for making a ground of cruelty for the dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the respondent used to go to her parents’ house frequently, and she used to stay for many days without the petitioner’s consent. However, the petitioner has not established the said fact by examining any person. Except for the petitioner’s interested testimony, no other material is available on record for establishing the various acts done by the respondent for constituting the cruelty. The petitioner alleged that he got issued a legal notice to the respondent calling her to join him, but she gave a reply notice, demanding for a separate house to join the petitioner. But the respondent has disputed issuing any such reply notice, and the petitioner has not filed the reply notice. The petitioner has been contending that as the respondent left his society, he developed friendship with Aruna, which ultimately lead to physical cohabitation with her and out of the said cohabitation, the said Aruna give birth to a daughter by name Sai Pranathi. 13. The petitioner has been contending that as the respondent left his society, he developed friendship with Aruna, which ultimately lead to physical cohabitation with her and out of the said cohabitation, the said Aruna give birth to a daughter by name Sai Pranathi. 13. The petitioner also contended that the respondent did not even attend the death ceremony of his father, who died on 17.06.1994. However, the respondent has been contending that she participated in the death ceremony of the petitioner's father. When the respondent denies such allegations, the petitioner ought to have examined any of his relatives to establish that the respondent did not attend the death ceremony of the petitioner's father. Subsequently, the respondent joined the petitioner and again, the respondent gave birth to a male child on 31.10.1995. The said circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner has condoned any acts done by the respondent, which constitutes cruelty by way of cohabitating with her. 14. The petitioner also contended that the sister of the petitioner by name Devaki Sudha got employment as a teacher, whereas the respondent could not get employment even though she completed B.Ed., course, and so the respondent became jealous and used to threaten the said Devaki Sudha, that she would implicate her in a criminal case, so that she would lose her job. The respondent denies all these allegations. However, the petitioner has not examined his sister, Devaki Sudha, to establish that the respondent threatened her at any time, as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner did not explain for non-examination of his sister Devaki Sudha. 15. The petitioner, in his petition averred that his father felt very bad when the respondent avoided attending the marriage of his sister. He worried very much about the disgusted marriage life of the petitioner and immediately, he succumbed to those tensions and drama on 17.06.1994. But in the cross-examination, the petitioner stated that his father was no longer alive on the date of his younger sister's marriage and that he and the respondent fulfilled all formalities of Kanyadhanam in his sister’s marriage. So it is clear that the petitioner has taken a false plea in the petition and he has gone to the extent of blaming the respondent for the death of the petitioner’s father. 16. Admittedly, even as per the petitioner’s version, the respondent left his society only in the month of May, 2002. So it is clear that the petitioner has taken a false plea in the petition and he has gone to the extent of blaming the respondent for the death of the petitioner’s father. 16. Admittedly, even as per the petitioner’s version, the respondent left his society only in the month of May, 2002. The marriage of the parties took place in the year 1990. So, they lived as wife and husband for a period of 12 years, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has an extramarital relationship with one Aruna. The parties are having two children. Disputes took place between the parties only due to the adulterous relationship developed by the petitioner with one Aruna. The respondent in her affidavit clearly and categorically stated that still she is ready to live with the petitioner along with her children to lead happy marital life, if the petitioner changes his adamant behaviour and shows love and affection towards her and her children and disconnect the illegal intimacy with the said Aruna. So, it is clear that the respondent still wants to join the petitioner’s company to lead a marital life. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that filing of a false criminal complaint against the husband and his family members under Section 498-A IPC constitutes matrimonial cruelty, and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Srinivas (1 st supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “4. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife has vehemently contended that it is not possible to label the wife’s criminal complaint detailed above as a false or a vindictive action. In other words, the acquittal of the Appellant and his family members in the criminal complaint does not by itself, automatically and justifiably, lead to the conclusion that the complaint was false; that only one complaint was preferred by the Respondent-Wife, whereas, in contradistinction, in K.Srinivas Rao a series of complaints by the wife had been preferred. The argument was premised on the averment that the investigation may have been faulty or the prosecution may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant had intentionally filed a false case. The argument was premised on the averment that the investigation may have been faulty or the prosecution may have been so careless as to lead to the acquittal, but the acquittal would not always indicate that the Complainant had intentionally filed a false case. What should be kept in perspective, it is reasonably argued, that the Complainant is not the controlling conductor in this Orchestra, but only one of the musicians who must deliver her rendition as and when and how she is called upon to do. Secondly, according to the learned counsel, the position would have been appreciably different if a specific finding regarding the falsity of the criminal complaint was returned, or if the Complainant or a witness on her behalf had committed perjury or had recorded a contradictory or incredible testimony. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Wife states that neither possibility has manifested itself here and, therefore, it would be unfair to the Respondent-Wife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty towards the Appellant and her in-laws that would justify the dissolution of her marriage.” In the above case, a series of complaints by the wife had been preferred. Whereas in the present case, there are no series of complaints by the respondent. However, against the judgment in C.C. No.1481 of 2005, the respondent preferred an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2013, which was also dismissed. Mere dismissal of a criminal case against the petitioner, does not entitle him to get a divorce on that ground only. The Court also has to look into other aspects. The petitioner has not established a single piece of evidence with regard to his wife’s cruelty and her adamant mentality. As such, the said judgment is not considered. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 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 allegation of offence under Section 498-A IPC, leveled by wife against husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has been meted out on husband, particularly, when serious allegations were made. He relied upon Rani Narasimha Sastry (2nd supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “13. He relied upon Rani Narasimha Sastry (2nd supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “13. In the present case the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A of 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 of 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 respondent under Section 498-A of IPC, the High Court made following observation in paragraph 14: 14.....Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of 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 for 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 of IPC, levelled by the wife against the husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted on the husband. As per 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.” In the above case, it is observed that after the parties married on 14.08.2005, they lived together only for 18 months, and thereafter, they were separately living for more than a decade. Whereas in the present case, the marriage of the parties took place in the year 1990. So, they lived as wife and husband for a period of 12 years, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has an extramarital relationship with one Aruna. The parties are having two children. Disputes took place between the parties only due to the adulterous relationship developed by the petitioner with one Aruna. So, they lived as wife and husband for a period of 12 years, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has an extramarital relationship with one Aruna. The parties are having two children. Disputes took place between the parties only due to the adulterous relationship developed by the petitioner with one Aruna. As such, the facts in the above judgment are differ to those of the present case. Hence, the same is not applicable to the case on hand. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that cruelty can never be defined with exactitude and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. After trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Talreja (3 rd supra) wherein it was held as under: “10. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the wife. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under Section 182 of IPC. 12. Though we have held that the acts of the wife in filing false complaints against the husband amounts to cruelty, we are, however, not oblivious to the requirements of the wife to have a decent house where she can live. Her son and daughter-in-law may not continue to live with her forever. Therefore, some permanent arrangement has to be made for her alimony and residence. Keeping in view the status of the parties, we direct that the husband shall pay to the wife a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as one time permanent alimony and she will not claim any further amount at any later stage. This amount be paid within three months from today. We further direct that the wife shall continue to live in the house which belongs to the mother of the husband till the husband provides her a flat of similar size in a similar locality. For this purpose, the husband is directed to ensure that a flat of the value up to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) be transferred in the name of his wife and till it is provided, she shall continue to live in the house in which she is residing at present.” In the case on hand, the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner is dismissed. However, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case that, after trial, if the accused is acquitted, it may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the appellant/petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage on the grounds as mentioned in Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.