JUDGMENT : (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.) 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant wife under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Morbi, (hereinafter be referred to as “the Family Court”) in Family Suit No. 36 of 2021 filed by the respondent – husband, whereby the Family Court has allowed the suit and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent. 2. Brief facts of the present case are in nutshell as under:- 2.1 The appellant and the respondent got married on 08.09.2015 as per the Hindu rites and rituals in Aarya Samaj. After two months of the marriage, the dispute was started between the appellant and respondent and cohabitation, the appellant left the matrimonial home and started living with her parental home. 2.2 Thereafter, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 206 of 2016 under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act against the respondent and his near relatives which is at present pending before the concerned Court at Rajkot and one another complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondent and his mother before the concerned Court at Rajkot and during the pendency of the said complaint, the mother-in-law of the appellant was expired and, therefore, the proceeding was abated qua mother-in-law. Before filing an application in 2021, the appellant hardly resided with the respondent at the matrimonial home for a period of two months and since last more than eight years, the appellant was residing at her parental home. Therefore, the respondent – husband had filed Family Suit No.36 of 2021 in the Family Court at Morbi under Section 13(1)(a), (i-a) the Act for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent. The Family Court has framed the issues at Exhibit 6 which reproduced as under:- (1) Whether the applicant proves that he is the legal husband of the opponent? (2) Whether the applicant proves that the opponent has without reasonable excuse withdrawn himself from society? (3) Whether the applicant proves that after solemnization of the marriage the opponent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (2) Whether the applicant proves that the opponent has without reasonable excuse withdrawn himself from society? (3) Whether the applicant proves that after solemnization of the marriage the opponent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (4) Whether the applicant proves that the opponent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? (5) What order & decree? 2.3 The appellant – wife has produced the oral as well as documentary evidence before the Family Court which came to be referred in para – 9 of the judgment and decree and the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence and not examined any other witnesses, except she herself examined at Exhibit 29. After considering the evidence oral as well as documentary, the Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent – husband and dissolved the marriage solemnized between the appellant and the respondent. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant – wife has preferred the present first appeal. 4. Heard Mr.H. J. Karathiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – wife and Mr.Kalrav Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – husband at length. 5. Mr.Karathiya, learned advocate has submitted that the Family Court has not considered the relevant facts in its proper spirit and not appreciated the evidence led by the appellant. He has submitted that the proceeding initiated by the appellant against the respondent and his family members are yet to be decided by the concerned Court and, therefore, at present the same is required to be considered in favour of the appellant. He has submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate aforesaid facts in its proper perspective while passing the judgment and decree. He has submitted that while passing the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage, the Family Court failed to pass any order with regard to permanent alimony and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside and/or alternatively, the Court may pass appropriate order with regard to permanent alimony. 5.1 In support of his arguments, Mr.Karathiya, learned advocate has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rohan Hirendrasinh Bayed Vs. 5.1 In support of his arguments, Mr.Karathiya, learned advocate has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rohan Hirendrasinh Bayed Vs. Deepika D/o. Gautamchand Jhujharmal Kumbhat reported in 2024 (0) GUJHC 53342 more particularly para – 5 and another decision in the case of Nitaben D/o. Gordhanbhai Govindbhai Patel Vs. Dinesh Jasbhai Patel reported in 2024 (0) GUJHC 38484 more particularly para – 6. 5.2 Mr.Karathiya, learned advocate has submitted that the Family Court has committed serious error of facts and law in passing the judgment and decree and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, Mr.Kalrav Patel, learned advocate has submitted that the Family Court has not committed any error of facts and law while passing the judgment and decree. He has submitted that in fact, the appellant has made bald allegation against the mother-in-law and the allegation made by the appellant against the mother-in-law was proved before the Family Court that the said allegation was without any substance and made with an intention to malice impression of the family in the society. He has submitted that Criminal Case No.2539 of 2017 instituted by the wife for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of learned 5 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot whereby the concerned Court acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2023, the copy of which is produced on record. He has submitted that the respondent – wife has produced necessary documentary evidence at Exhibit 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 to prove his case before the Family Court and in oral evidence, the respondent herein has contended that the act on the part of the appellant was fallen under the terms of cruelty and the same was proved before the concerned Court beyond reasonable doubt though he was examined by the appellant. He has submitted that in his cross- examination, the respondent has specifically stated that he was residing in joint family and the appellant has made false and frivolous allegation with regard to the character of the mother-in-law. He has submitted that in his cross- examination, the respondent has specifically stated that he was residing in joint family and the appellant has made false and frivolous allegation with regard to the character of the mother-in-law. He has submitted that the respondent has admitted that since there was scufÒe took place between his brother-in-law and his mother, the mother of the respondent died. He has submitted that so in term the respondent has proved the charge of cruelty and desertion against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt after leading cogent evidence before the Family Court and the Family Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree of dissolution. Mr.Patel, learned advocate has urged that the present appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the relevant documents and material placed on record as well as the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court. 8. It appears that issues involved in present Appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the Family Court was right and justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage? (ii) Whether the appellant proves that the cruelty meted out by the appellant was one of the grounds while passing the order of dissolution of marriage by the Family Court? (iii) Whether the learned Family Court has rightly considered the factum of lodging of the criminal complaint against the opponent and family members? 9. So far as above issues are concerned, it is an admitted fact that the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is absolutely irretrievable between the husband and wife. Further, the wife had lodged a criminal prosecution against the family members of the respondent, even who was not residing with them and for that they underwent mental agony for almost six years. In fact, after the marriage, only for a period of two months, the appellant – wife resided with the respondent – husband at her matrimonial home. Further, the wife had lodged a criminal prosecution against the family members of the respondent, even who was not residing with them and for that they underwent mental agony for almost six years. In fact, after the marriage, only for a period of two months, the appellant – wife resided with the respondent – husband at her matrimonial home. Even before filing an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, the respondent – husband has tried to resolve their dispute, but all in vain and the appellant has misused the relationship by filing false and frivolous criminal prosecution with wield allegation against the character of the mother of the respondent and in one another complaint under the Domestic Violence Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act, the wife has tried to involve many persons / relatives of the respondent and ultimately, the concerned Court below, while considering the nature of the dispute and the evidence on record, has held that the appellant has meted out the cruelty and desertion from 2016 onward and after considering all these facts, the Family Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree of dissolution. 10. This Court, at the time of issuance of notice, has tried to resolve the dispute by sending the matter to the High Court Mediation Centre on 06.04.2023, but ultimately the conciliation proceeding failed and unsuccessful and, therefore, the appeal was admitted and now the same is decided on merits and in accordance with law. The order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, where the wife demanded Rs.1 Crore towards permanent alimony from the husband though she is aware that the husband is doing a job and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and he is unable to pay this much amount and, therefore, under such circumstances, the intention on the part of the wife is very much clear that she does not want to dissolve the dispute. 11. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the Family Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. We are in complete agreement with the findings and reasoning recorded by the Family court in paras – 21, 22, 29 and 30 of the judgment and decree. We are in complete agreement with the findings and reasoning recorded by the Family court in paras – 21, 22, 29 and 30 of the judgment and decree. The Family Court has rightly appreciated the oral evidence made on behalf of both the sides, since neither of the party has produced any further evidence before the Court below. 12. At this stage, it is also relevant to take into account the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rani Narasimha Sastri vs. Rani Suneela Rani reported in (2020) 18 SCC 247, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the fact that cruelty is a sufÏcient ground for divorce and thus has observed that:- "13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the respondent against the appellant under Section 498-A 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 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 the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, the High Court made the following observation in para 15: (Rani Narsimha Sastry case, SCC OnLine Hyd) "15. ... Merely because the respondent has sought for maintenance or has filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A 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 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 out on the husband. 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 out on the husband. As per the pleadings before us, after parties having been married on 14-8-2005 they lived together only 18 months and, thereafter, they are separately living for more than a decade now." 13. Considering the facts of the case, it appears that the appellant has made false and frivolous allegation with regard to the character of the mother of the respondent and also initiated criminal proceeding under the different statute before the concerned Court and out of that proceedings, one of the proceedings culminated acquittal whereby the concerned Court has acquitted the accused persons vide order dated 15.07.2023. 14. The Family Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage. It is also evident from the oral evidence led by both the sides that the family members have also falsely implicated in the criminal complaint by the appellant. 15. In the case of Dr.Mayuriben W/o Shaileshbhai Mudhava D/o. Maganbhai Luhar Vs. Dr.Shaileshbhai Ganeshbhai Mundhava reported in 2024 LawSuit (Guj) 1984 , the Court has observed that in the present case, on allegations are such which are grave and weighty which can be treated to be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. 16. In the case of Joydeep Majumdar Vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 10 as under:- “10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufÏcient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh Vs. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufÏcient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 this Court gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts.” 17. In the case of Shri Rakesh Raman Vs. Kavita reported in AIR 2023 SC 2144 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that 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) (i-a) of the 1955 Act and passed the order of dissolution of marriage. So, in such circumstances, after considering relevant facts of the case, the present appeal is failed. 18. Considering the aforesaid aspect, learned Family Court has rightly passed the judgment and decree, whereby the marriage was dissolved between the appellant and the respondent. There was no infirmity or any irregularity committed by the Family Court in passing the judgment and decree in favour of present respondent. 19. Lastly, Mr.Karathiya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted on the aspect of alimony that the appellant has neither preferred any application before the concerned Court nor any order has been passed on the same and, therefore, the Court may open the right for the appellant to make appropriate application under the Hindu Marriage Act and/or Criminal Procedure Code for seeking maintenance. 20. We have assigned reasons only for not entertaining the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the Family Court and we do not assign any separate reasons. 21. For the reasons assigned aforesaid, present appeal is devoid of any merits and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Morbi in Family Suit No. 36 of 2021 is hereby confirmed. 21. For the reasons assigned aforesaid, present appeal is devoid of any merits and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Morbi in Family Suit No. 36 of 2021 is hereby confirmed. It is open for the appellant to make appropriate application under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and/or Criminal Procedure Code for seeking maintenance before the concerned Court and the same shall be decided by the concerned Court on merits and in accordance with law without being influence by the order passed by this Court. The connected Civil Application will also not survive and hence the same also stands disposed of accordingly.