JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - wife and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the respondent - husband. 2. This Family Court Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 31.12.2013 in FCOP No.1099 of 2010 passed by learned the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties held on 25.02.2007 and by cancelling the marriage certificate registered with the Registrar, SRO Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3. The appellant is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP No.1099 of 2010 under Section - 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant - wife, seeking decree of divorce on the following grounds: i. Their marriage was performed on 25.02.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs. ii. At the time of marriage, the respondent did not take any dowry. iii. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a male child on 04.07.2008, namely Master Hemang. iv. The appellant used to ill-treat the respondent in the presence of his friends. v. The appellant is rude and adamant towards the respondent. vi. The appellant is suspicious in nature and used to suspect the respondent whenever he comes late on account of his job; vii. The appellant is in the habit of going to her parents’ house frequently without informing the respondent. viii. Despite bringing all the said aspects to the notice of parents of the appellant, the same went in vain. ix. The appellant left the company of the respondent on 12.01.2008 when he was in Malta. Since then, both the parties are residing separately without any relationship as wife and husband for more than two (02) years. x. When the respondent tried to contact her on 24.09.2008 (which was amended from 24.08.2008), she having seen the number did not pick up the phone continuously. Finally when he went to the appellant house, instead of allowing him to come inside, stated that the appellant went out and nobody were in the house. 4. The appellant herein filed counter denying the claim of the respondent on the following grounds: i. During the marriage proposals itself, the respondent and his parents demanded her parents regarding dowry and gold ornaments etc. ii. 4. The appellant herein filed counter denying the claim of the respondent on the following grounds: i. During the marriage proposals itself, the respondent and his parents demanded her parents regarding dowry and gold ornaments etc. ii. The respondent is very selfish and enjoys for himself and never used to care for the minimum comforts of the appellant. iii. The respondent never showed love and affection towards the appellant. iv. The appellant adjusted herself realizing that he would mend one day or the other. v. The respondent and his parents harassed the appellant, both physically and mentally soon after the marriage. vi. The respondent used to leave to the office at 8.00 A.M. and return home any time between 12.00 A.M. and 3.00 A.M. in the early morning every day. He never used to be at Home on weekends. 5. The appellant herein also filed additional counter in the said FCOP contending that the date 24.08.2008 sought to be amended as 24.09.2008 is nothing but an afterthought when she filed the petitions to reopen the case and to receive the documents viz., e-mails dated 12.08.2008 and 28.08.2008 in evidence and recall the respondent herein for further cross-examination as he was in Malta in the month of August, 2008. 6. In order to prove the case of the respondent herein, he himself examined as PW.1 and also examined his father and friend as PWs.2 and 3 respectively on his behalf, and marked Exs.P1 to P9, whereas the appellant herself examined as RW1 and got examined her maternal grandfather and maternal uncle as RWs.2 and 3 on her behalf and also marked Exs.B1 to B5. 7. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, vide order dated 31.12.2013, learned Judge, Family Court allowed the said O.P. granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage held on 25.02.2007 between the parties on the following grounds: i. The appellant herein is living away from the respondent from 12.01.2008; ii. Because of long gap between the parties living away from each other, there is no possibility for them to live together, even if the divorce is not granted, there is no possibility for their reunion. iii. Because of all the incidents stated by the respondent in his pleadings, evidence and through witnesses, he proved the cruelty of the appellant towards him as she is living away from him from 12.01.2008. iii. Because of all the incidents stated by the respondent in his pleadings, evidence and through witnesses, he proved the cruelty of the appellant towards him as she is living away from him from 12.01.2008. Thus, the respondent is also entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion also. iv. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 8. Challenging the said decree of divorce, the appellant - wife filed the present appeal. 9. Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the respondent, made their submissions extensively. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the principle laid down in i) Praveen Mehta v. Indrajit Mehta , (2002) 5 SCC 706 Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur , (2010) 14 SCC 301 , Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi, (2010) 4 SCC 476 and Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Susha Kohli , (2004) 7 SCC 747 . 11. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the principle laid down in K. Sekhar Rao v. K. Rekha , 2025 (2) ALT 394 (DB) (TS). 12. The aforesaid rival submissions would make it clear that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the appellant with the respondent on 25.02.2007 and that it is an arranged marriage as per Hindu rites and customs. They were blessed with a male child on 04.07.2008 out of their lawful wedlock. Perusal of contents of the petition in FCOP No.1099 of 2010 and his depositions would reveal that there was dispute with regard to profile sent by him to M/s. Vanaja Rao Quick Marriages Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘Marriage Bureau’) through which marriage of the parties was fixed. 13. It is the specific contention of the appellant herein that the respondent mentioned as Chartered Accountant (CA) and pursuing MBA in the said profile sent by him to the aforesaid Marriage Bureau. However, the respondent denied the said fact during cross- examination. However, he has admitted at the time of alliance he was working in HSBC as Assistant Manager. He does not remember whether he mentioned in his profile that his income is Rs.3.00 lakhs per annum. He has further admitted that he never possessed C.A. Certificate and not stated that MBA Course at any point of time. However, he has admitted at the time of alliance he was working in HSBC as Assistant Manager. He does not remember whether he mentioned in his profile that his income is Rs.3.00 lakhs per annum. He has further admitted that he never possessed C.A. Certificate and not stated that MBA Course at any point of time. It is also not in dispute that the respondent studied B.Com., and working as Assistant Manager in HSBC. The appellant herein completed her MBA and was working in M/s. Alliance Global Services at the time of marriage. Her salary was Rs.30,000/- per month. 14. It is the specific contention of the respondent - husband that he is a rationalist having modern thoughts. He is against dowry system. To adhere the said principle, he married the appellant without taking dowry, though the system of dowry is prevailing in their caste and community. 15. As discussed above, the respondent - husband had filed the aforesaid FCOP under Section - 13 (1) (ia) (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’. To prove the said cruelty and desertion, he himself examined as PW.1, his mother as PW.2 and friend as PW.3. He has filed Exs.P1 to P9 documents. To disprove the same, the appellant herein examined herself as RW.1, her maternal grandfather as RW.2 and maternal uncle as RW.3. She has filed Exs.B1 to B6 documents. 16. The respondent narrated the cruel acts and desertion in the aforesaid FCOP. According to him, the appellant deserted him on 12.01.2008. Child was born on 04.07.2008. The cradle ceremony was performed on 24.07.2008. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the parents of the appellant informed that they are celebrating naming ceremony of the boy on 24.07.2008. He and his parents and other family members totaling 10 went and attended the naming function. He took several articles, dresses and also presented a gold chain and infant playing games etc. The parents of the appellant have not given minimum respect to them and treated them as of far relatives and not attended them properly and insulted them. All the efforts made by him to get back the appellant back for restoration of conjugal rights and to lead family life, but the same became in vain. The parents of the appellant have not given minimum respect to them and treated them as of far relatives and not attended them properly and insulted them. All the efforts made by him to get back the appellant back for restoration of conjugal rights and to lead family life, but the same became in vain. Thus, the appellant - wife left his company on 12.01.2008 with all her belongings when he went to Malta only with an intention to put an end to the marital life. After naming ceremony of the boy on 24.07.2008, there is no relation between the appellant and the respondent as wife and husband as they are residing separately. On 24.07.2008, he tried to contact the appellant and seeing the number, the appellant did not pick up his phone call made by the respondent. Thus, she has not allowed the respondent to visit his child. He left to Bangalore in the month of January, 2009 for proper prospects. Even then, the appellant did not turn up and join his company. 17. According to the respondent - husband, the appellant - wife is suffering from psychiatric problem. But, during cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not taken his wife to any psychiatrist on the ground that she is psychic. According to him, his wife refused saying that she does not have any problem. 18. At the time of marriage alliance, both of them exchanged their views. After the marriage, they went to Kerala for honeymoon. He is in the habit of taking alcohol drinks and smoking. He was only occasional smoker. He has admitted the said facts during cross- examination. 19. It is the specific contention of the appellant that the respondent is a chain smoker and alcoholic and he used to drink every day. He used to come home late in the nights or in the early morning in a drunken condition in the weekends and normal in the week days. The said attitude of the respondent - husband created differences between them. During cross-examination, the appellant - wife admitted that she stated that at the time of marriage talks, her husband stated that he has no bad habits, like taking alcohol and smoking etc. She observed her husband consuming alcohol and chain smoking even during honeymoon. The said attitude of the respondent - husband created differences between them. During cross-examination, the appellant - wife admitted that she stated that at the time of marriage talks, her husband stated that he has no bad habits, like taking alcohol and smoking etc. She observed her husband consuming alcohol and chain smoking even during honeymoon. Till her last stay with her husband i.e., before going to her parents’ house, she found her husband consuming alcohol and smoking. One of the differences between her and her husband is the said two habits. He used to come late in the nights or in the early morning in a drunken condition in the weekends and normal in the week days. During cross-examination she has further admitted that even during normal days, he comes late in the night. The same is also one of the reasons for differences for living separately. In spite of her request and advice, her husband has not stopped the said habits. 20. The aforesaid evidence of both PW.1 - husband and RW.1 - wife would reveal that there are disputes between them right from the date of marriage, more particularly when they went to Kerala for honeymoon. 21. Perusal of deposition of PW.1 and RW.1 also would reveal that the appellant - wife made serious allegations against her husband that he used to maintain illicit relation with women/his colleagues. During cross-examination of PW.1 - husband, she made a suggestion to PW.1 that a lady voice came in between their conversation saying “Hi Vasu Come on my Darling”. When she has asked about the same as to who is that lady came in between them, he stated that she is friend. However, PW.1 denied that there was no such conversation between him and the lady. He has also denied a suggestion that the appellant has not attributed intimacy to him with other ladies attributing extra marital life. However, he has not mentioned the said facts in his petition or in his evidence that his wife attributed the extra marital life and illicit contacts with ladies by means. 22. However, during cross-examination, RW.1 admitted that she does not think so, her husband moves with girl friends. She observed calling her husband by a lady. One of the instances, she has also seen message over cell phone. The same was also a cause for strained relation between the parties. 23. 22. However, during cross-examination, RW.1 admitted that she does not think so, her husband moves with girl friends. She observed calling her husband by a lady. One of the instances, she has also seen message over cell phone. The same was also a cause for strained relation between the parties. 23. Perusal of record would also reveal that the respondent - husband made serious allegations against the appellant - wife that she has attempted to commit suicide, threatened him and his parents. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he was intending to examine his mother as a witness on his behalf. When the appellant used to threaten that she would commit suicide, he informed the same to her parents, but he has not given any complaint to the police. 24. RW.1 in her examination-in-chief specifically stated that she never attributed any allegation against the respondent herein that he has vices and intimacy with ladies and that he is having extra marital affairs. One of the occasions was that the respondent called her over phone from his office and a lady voice coming up in between saying that “Hey Vasu, come on, my darling” with a vamp like voice which was very very irritable to hear. When she asked him as to who is she and why the voice has come in between, he stated that his friend wanted to see his reaction. 25. She further stated that subsequently on another occasion when her husband on one week end when he came late in the night he went to sleep as soon as he came home. She went to switch off the light, his mobile was blinking with the message “Hi Aparna, I love you my dear and I am there to support you”. Such a message was sent by him to her. However, during cross-examination, she has admitted that she does not think so that her husband moves with girl friends. 26. It is the specific contention of the respondent that the appellant left his company on 12.01.2008 when he went to Malta by taking her all belongings including jewellery etc., with an intention to put an end to the marital life. Thus, she has deserted him on 12.01.2008. However, it is the contention of the wife that she left to her parents’ house on 12.01.2008 while she was carrying. She gave birth to a male child on 04.07.2008. Thus, she has deserted him on 12.01.2008. However, it is the contention of the wife that she left to her parents’ house on 12.01.2008 while she was carrying. She gave birth to a male child on 04.07.2008. Naming ceremony was held on 23.07.2008. According to the husband, he attended the said ceremony, whereas according to the wife, he did not attend the ceremony. According to the wife, her husband and his parents made several nasty comments against her parents stating that the ceremony was performed in below their standards. According to her, when her husband’s grandfather died, her parents went and consoled his mother and other family members. She could not attend as she was very sick, that too with small child, who had to be taken care of. While the baby boy was in 5 th month, on 22.11.2008, her uncle and her brother dropped her at her husband’s place, though the respondent was very much present in the house, he did not even turn up and wish her uncle and brother. The respondent started behaving in a very strange manner and he used to sleep in another room and never used to talk with her while at home. Her mother-in-law as usual so rude and nasty in her approach towards her. 27. However, during cross-examination, RW.2 - wife admitted that after 12.01.2008, she has not come back to her husband. Her husband and her in-laws called her parents and told them to keep her till 5 th month after delivery. She has not joined her husband at any point of time and the related date i.e., 22.11.2008 is created and the incidents stated in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of her chief-examination affidavit are not correct. She joined the matrimonial house on 22.11.2008 as she was dropped by her uncle, Mr. Eswar Rao (RW.3) and her brother, Mr. Benerjee. However, she has admitted in her cross-examination that she has not mentioned the name of Mr. Eswar Rao and Mr. Benerjee in her chief-examination affidavit. 28. During cross-examination, she has further admitted that she is residing separately from her husband. She has not given any notice to her husband demanding restitution of conjugal rights. According to the appellant, her parents or elders tried for conciliation/mediation, but she has not examined any of the mediators who conducted conciliation and mediation. 29. Benerjee in her chief-examination affidavit. 28. During cross-examination, she has further admitted that she is residing separately from her husband. She has not given any notice to her husband demanding restitution of conjugal rights. According to the appellant, her parents or elders tried for conciliation/mediation, but she has not examined any of the mediators who conducted conciliation and mediation. 29. Though the child was born on 04.07.2008, he was with the appellant. The respondent did not make any effort to take the custody of the minor boy or seeking visitation rights. She has also admitted the said fact during cross-examination. However she has objection to give her son to her husband. Her intention is to live together and the boy should be brought up by both of them. Her husband never paid any maintenance either to her or to her child. 30. It is also apt to note that during cross-examination, the appellant has categorically admitted that there are differences right from marriage talks till their separation. Though the differences are there, she adjusted and stayed with her husband. She has further admitted that her educational certificates are with her only. Silver plates, clothes, wardrobe etc. are in the custody of her in-laws and nowhere in her counter or in her chief-examination stated about the same. She further admitted that she has not given any notice for restitution of conjugal rights. However, she has clarified that she has not filed with a fond hope that her husband may realize and may come to lead marital life. 31. It is also apt to note that the respondent - husband contended that he went to her in-laws house on 24.07.2008, but he has not filed any document in proof of the same and he has not examined any of the witness. 32. It is also relevant to note that the during cross-examination of PW.1, when the appellant made a suggestion to him that on 02.11.2007 in the early hours about 5.00 A.M. he came home in drunken condition and on her enquiry he has stated that he slept in after dropping lady colleague at their home at 11 P.M. of the previous night, he denied the same. 33. 33. It is also the specific allegation of the appellant - wife that she has consulted the Gynecologist, who confirmed her pregnancy and even her husband came home early and informed the same, but he has not expressed any feeling. She has also made an allegation against her father-in-law that he used to behave in indecent manner. Her mother- in-law used to insist her not to close the door of the bed room while she was feeding the boy and observing the same by her father-in-law, by coming into the said room and there is nothing wrong even if the father-in-law enters into the bed room while the appellant feeding the boy. 34. During cross-examination, a suggestion was given to the respondent - husband that the appellant - wife is interested to join his company to discharge her marital obligation, he has answered that after going through such agony and mental torture put by his wife which clearly shows that there is no compatibility as his wife had made allegations against him. He has further admitted that he has not paid any maintenance to his son for his day-to-day expenses and for his upbringing. 35. According to the wife, there is exchange of e-mails between her and her husband i.e., Exs.B3, 5 and 6. He has admitted that his e-mail ID is vasu.davuluri99@gmail.com. His earlier e-mail ID is vasu-davuluri76@rediffmail.com. He has denied sending e-mail to his wife on 03.01.2010 i.e., on Sunday. However, the said e-mails were shown to him. He has also admitted that he has not issued any notice to her saying that she left his company without informing him. Though the appellant - wife filed the said e-mails, to contend that she brought up the boy, lead marital life, she could not prove anything from the said e-mails. 36. It is also the specific contention of the appellant - wife that the respondent and his parents imposed certain conditions i.e., i) if she wants to come to the matrimonial house, she has to live as per his parents dictates; ii) she will not allow to take her to Bangalore or any other his work place; iii) she shall bring Rs.4.00 lakhs so that she can resign her job and live with interest amount accrued over the said amount; iv) she should bring some more jewelry and she should get immovable property documents registered in her name. However, the respondent - husband denied the said suggestion. 37. PW.2, mother of the respondent - husband, deposed about the disputes between her son and daughter-in-law. However, she has admitted about the marriage and birth of the child on 04.07.2008. According to her, her daughter-in-law left her son under the pretext of pregnancy on 12.01.2008 only with an intention to put an end to the marital life and with that intention only she has taken all her belongings when her son was out of Country and went to Malta. However, during cross-examination, she has admitted that marriage alliance of her son and daughter-in-law was arranged through the said Marriage Bureau. His son was working as Assistant Manager in HSBC Bank at the time of marriage. His profile was kept in the said Marriage Bureau. The said Marriage Bureau arranged the said alliance. However, she has denied about mentioning of her son’s qualification as C.A., B.Com., M.B.A., in the said profile. She has further admitted that after the marriage of her son, the marriage of her brother-in-law’s daughter was performed. Her son and her daughter- in-law did not attend the said marriage as her daughter-in-law refused to attend the marriage. She further admitted that after 12.01.2008, there were occasions that she used to talk to her daughter-in-law over telephone, and on two occasions she had spoken to her daughter-in- law over telephone. Despite her request, her daughter-in-law did not attend the 11 th day ceremony of her deceased mother. She further admitted that they got married the appellant to PW.1 as she is educated and doing job. To a suggestion that the appellant is ready to join her son and lead marital life, she answered that it is the wish of her son. 38. The respondent examined his friend as PW.3 to show that his wife’s attitude towards his friends is not normal. She was groomy. When the respondent asked to serve a cup of tea to them, his wife loudly and reluctantly stated that she is not a waitress to serve as suits in odd hours and sarcastically and ironically stated that it is not the tea time for them and to take other drink as they do regular. On hearing the same, PW.1 not only felt shameful but also felt insulted and the said incident came to be known by everybody in their friends circle. On hearing the same, PW.1 not only felt shameful but also felt insulted and the said incident came to be known by everybody in their friends circle. PW.1 informed PW.3 that he is not happy with family life. 39. The appellant herein - wife examined her maternal grandfather as RW.2 to prove that RW.1 is very soft spoken, submissive and got respect to the elders, more particularly towards her in-laws. RW.1 tried and made so many efforts to join her husband to lead marital life with the respondent herein. He has further deposed that marital life of his granddaughter with the respondent is very important, he and his brother, Mr. K. Prasad went to the respondent’s house to mediate the matter in the month of December, 2009. They tried to convince the respondent’s parents and requested them to take their daughter-in-law to marital house. The respondent’s maternal grandfather, Mr. Purushotam Rao informed him to convince his granddaughter to go for the divorce and perform another marriage to her and they will go for another marriage to their son. Thus, the respondent herein is not at all interested to lead marital life with the appellant. However, the appellant did not examine the said K. Prasad or Mr. Purushotam Rao to prove the same. 40. During cross-examination, RW.2 categorically admitted that RW.1 informed him about the behavior of PW.1 and that PW.1 comes late in the nights and drinks. He does not know the reasons for differences between PW.1 and RW.1, and drinking is the reason for the same. RW.1 informed him that PW.1 and his parents insisted to get the property documents which are in the name of RW.1 and also money. RW.1 is residing separately as she was sent out by PW.1 and his family. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the said fact in his chief-examination affidavit. He cannot give the date of mediation. RW.1 left the place of matrimonial home till date. There is no relationship of husband and wife between them. He further admitted that the differences between PW.1 and RW.1 are not adjustable and that due to the said differences, they are living separately. He does not know with regard to the efforts made by RW.1 to join her marital life. He does not know whether any mediation was taken place prior to his mediation in the month of December, 2009 or subsequently. He does not know with regard to the efforts made by RW.1 to join her marital life. He does not know whether any mediation was taken place prior to his mediation in the month of December, 2009 or subsequently. He does not know whether RW.1 went to her in-laws place taking the new born boy and also his daughter and son-in-law. 41. The appellant also examined her maternal uncle as RW.3, who deposed that on 22.11.2008 he and brother of the appellant, Mr. Benerjee dropped the appellant in the house of respondent when the baby boy was five months old. The respondent was very much present in the house and he did not turn up and wished them. In the month of April, 2009, he and his wife went to the respondent’s house to invite him and his parents for his daughter’s marriage. The parents of the respondent informed that they and their son are not interested to continue the marital relationship with the appellant and that their son is going to file a divorce petition. 42. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that PW.1 and RW.1 are residing separately. He does not know since how long they are residing separately. On 04.07.2008, RW.1 was blessed with a male child. He cannot identify PW.1 presently. He has seen PW.1 prior and after marriage. He has no proof to show that he invited PW.1 and his parents to his daughter’s marriage. He is giving evidence at the request of RW.1 and RW.1 informed certain incidents to him and RW.1 has not stated to him any differences between PW.1 and her. He has seen PW.1 only once before marriage and once after the marriage and he did not talk to him at any point of time. RW.1 informed him that the parents of PW.1 imposed conditions, like to get the property, to bring money and to give her salary etc. Except going to PW.1’s house for giving marriage invitation of his daughter, he did not make any effort to convince them for their re-union. 43. The aforesaid evidence would reveal that there are differences between PW.1 and RW.1 right from the initial stage of marriage. According to the appellant - wife, the respondent - husband is a chain smoker and used to consume alcohol daily. She came to know the said facts during her honeymoon in Kerala. 43. The aforesaid evidence would reveal that there are differences between PW.1 and RW.1 right from the initial stage of marriage. According to the appellant - wife, the respondent - husband is a chain smoker and used to consume alcohol daily. She came to know the said facts during her honeymoon in Kerala. Despite her advice, he has not stopped the same. It is also apt to note that PW.1 during cross-examination admitted that he is a smoker and he used to consume alcohol. The said habits also created differences between the wife and husband. 44. RW.1 suspected that PW.1 has illicit relation with ladies. She has narrated the aforesaid two incidents. However, during cross- examination she has admitted that she does not think so that PW.1 maintained relations with ladies. However, she has suspicion over PW.1. The same was also created differences between them. 45. As discussed above, the appellant - wife also made a specific allegation that the respondent - husband made to believe her that he did C.A., and also MBA. He has mentioned the same in his profile sent to the aforesaid Marriage Bureau. To prove the same, she has filed Ex.B2 profile of the husband given to the Marriage Bureau. Perusal of Ex.B2 profile would reveal that the respondent has mentioned his qualification as C.A., B.Com., and M.B.A., (pursuing in Kranthi Degree College, Symbiosis, Vijayawada, Pune, 1998 III Semister). Designation as Assistant Manager, Operations, Income as Rs.3.00 lakhs PA. 46. During cross-examination, PW.1 and PW.2 have admitted that they have sent the profile of PW.1 to the aforesaid Marriage Bureau. In fact, PW.1 was only a graduate at the time of marriage and he was working as Assistant Manager in HSBC, Hyderabad. The said fact also created difference between the wife and husband. 47. Perusal of evidence also would reveal that the appellant - wife has made specific allegation against PW.1 and his parents that they have harassed her in the manner stated above. The respondent - husband also made serious allegations against his wife contending that she has psychic problem. However, he has not taken her to any psychiatrist and he has not proved the same. 48. It is also the contention of the appellant - wife that the respondent used to come home during late hours and sometimes early hours in drunken conditions. The same also created difference between them. 49. However, he has not taken her to any psychiatrist and he has not proved the same. 48. It is also the contention of the appellant - wife that the respondent used to come home during late hours and sometimes early hours in drunken conditions. The same also created difference between them. 49. Perusal of the aforesaid evidence would reveal that both the appellant and the respondent are staying separately with effect from 12.01.2008. Even assuming for a moment that PW.1 and his parents attended the cradle ceremony of the boy, the same was on 24.07.2008. Thereafter they have not met. Though the appellant - wife contended that she went to her husband’s house on 22.11.2008, she has not proved the same. Even the same is taken as true, thereafter she left the house and, thus, from November, 2008 onwards they are staying separately and the same was also admitted by them. RW.2, maternal grandfather of the wife also admitted the said fact. PW.1 and his mother also deposed on the same lines. Even then, nothing was elicited from them during cross-examination. 50. InK. Sekhar Rao5relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering several judgments of the Apex Court and on examination of the facts of the said case where both the spouses are staying separately since last 16 years and that there was no possibility of re-union of the parties, granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties. 51. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. 52. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. 52. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system as observed by the Apex Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 . 53. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of "cruelty" or blameworthy conduct of the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or long separation between the two are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration as observed by the Apex Court in Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita , 2023 AIR (SC) 2144. 54. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits as held by the Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , (2006) 4 SCC 558 . 55. The appellant and the respondent were at loggerheads right from the inception of their marriage. The marriage never took off. Regardless of the subsistence of the marriage for the last twelve years, the couple was unable to patch up their differences. The marriage is virtually shattered and has become a dead wood. The allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other establish that there is no further chance of a rapprochement. The appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances of cruelty meted out on him by the respondent as held by the Apex Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna , MANU/KE/1505/2021. 56. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. The appellant has pleaded and proved specific instances of cruelty meted out on him by the respondent as held by the Apex Court in Prabin Gopal v. Meghna , MANU/KE/1505/2021. 56. Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce as held by the Apex Court in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy , (2005) 7 SCC 353 . 57. Cruelty is not defined in any statute. It is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. We have to consider the entire evidence and the allegations made by the husband, assess the same and come to a conclusion that the same amounts to cruelty or not. 58. Perusal of record would reveal that the respondent - husband had filed the aforesaid petition vide FCOP.No.1099 of 2010 in the year 2010. It was allowed on 31.12.2013. Assailing the said order, appellant - wife preferred the present Appeal in the year 2015. The parties are staying separately from 2008 i.e., since last 17 years. 59. In Naveen Kohli 8 , the Apex Court held as follows: “72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. 73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. 74. 73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. 74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised 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 do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. 75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. 76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.” 60. We have also made efforts for reconciliation of the parties. Both the learned counsel appearing on either side also made their efforts. On instructions, they have submitted that there is no possibility of re-union of the parties. 61. As discussed above, the parties are staying separately from 2008 onwards i.e., since last 17 years. The boy is 17 years now. It is not in dispute that the appellant - wife brought up the boy. The respondent - husband never tried to seek custody of boy and also for visitation rights. He has admitted that he has not maintained his son and he has not paid any amount towards his maintenance and that his wife brought up the boy. 62. It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court can dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. He has admitted that he has not maintained his son and he has not paid any amount towards his maintenance and that his wife brought up the boy. 62. It is settled law that neither this Court nor Family Court can dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, it can be considered as an aspect along with other aspects while deciding the present Appeal. In the present case, the parties are staying separately since last 17 years. There is no possibility of their re-union. During the period of said separation only, the respondent - husband filed the aforesaid FCOP. On consideration of the said evidence, the trial Court allowed the said FCOP filed by the respondent - husband vide impugned order dated 31.12.2013 dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent dated 25.02.2007 by cancelling their marriage certificate registered with the Registrar, SRO of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 63. It is apt to note that as on the date of marriage, the respondent - husband used to work as an Assistant Manager in HSBC. His father used to work as Manager in Balco Company and he has taken voluntary retirement. 64. It is also not in dispute that the appellant - wife worked for some time. She has not filed any complaint against her husband and in-laws for the offences under Section - 498A of IPC and under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. She has not filed any application under Section - 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Though the appellant left the company of the respondent - husband in the year 2008, she has not filed any application under Section - 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. Even, the respondent has not filed any such application. However, he has categorically admitted that he was not interested to join the company of his wife. 65. As stated above, the appellant brought up her son till date, for which the respondent herein did not pay any amount. The respondent did not plead and prove that the appellant - wife has worked and she is in a position to maintain herself. In the light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that learned Family Court rightly granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and there is no error in it. The respondent did not plead and prove that the appellant - wife has worked and she is in a position to maintain herself. In the light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that learned Family Court rightly granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and there is no error in it. However, learned Family Court erred in not granting permanent alimony to the appellant considering the fact that she brought up the boy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant - wife herein is entitled for an amount of Rs.30,00,000- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) towards permanent alimony and the respondent - husband liable to pay the same. 66. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 in FCOP No.1099 of 2010 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent is confirmed, and we are of the opinion that the appellant - wife is entitled for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) towards permanent alimony from the respondent - husband. The same is towards full and final settlement of the claims of appellant - wife and the minor son. The respondent shall pay the said amount within two (02) months from today, failing which the appellant - wife is entitled to take steps in accordance with law. 67. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal case shall stand closed.