Order 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant (for short ‘husband’) against the respondent (for short ‘wife’) under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act , 1984 challenging the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by Family Court, Bharatpur (Raj.) whereby the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (for short ‘Act of 1955’) has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerge from the record are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 05.12.2007 at Nadiyad, District Khera (Gujarat) and the parties has no child out of their wedlock. Both husband and wife are doctor by profession. The husband filed a petition before the Family Court seeking divorce from the wife stating therein that after marriage wife lived with the husband only about for two to three months during their two years of matrimonial period. The husband further stated in the petition that wife is in Government Service and working in the State of Gujarat. At the time of filing of the divorce petition her salary was Rs.60,000/- per month whereas the husband was working in rural area and his salary was less than Rs.20,000/- per month. The husband further stated in the petition that he was pressurized by his wife to come and live with her in the State of Gujarat, as there are more avenues in their profession, even in the Government job where the salary is much higher. The husband further stated that the wife threatened him on various occasions for which he has also lodged complaint against the wife at Police Station, Bharatpur. The wife is living separately since the year2009. He further stated in the petition that there is no possibility of their reunion and prayed for granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. The wife replied to the said application/petition and stated that she is ready to live with the husband and she never threatened him. She further stated in her reply that husband does not want to respect their matrimonial relationship and prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition. 4. Husband submitted his own evidence as AW-1- Veerbhan Singh & AW-2 Chhatarbhan Singh and also submitted the documents marked as Ex.1 to Ex.10. She further stated in her reply that husband does not want to respect their matrimonial relationship and prayed for dismissal of the divorce petition. 4. Husband submitted his own evidence as AW-1- Veerbhan Singh & AW-2 Chhatarbhan Singh and also submitted the documents marked as Ex.1 to Ex.10. Wife submitted her own evidence as NAW-1- Sonal Talpada, NAW-2-Manharbhai & NAW-3- Jaishri Bahin and also submitted the documents marked as NA-1 to NA-6. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court framed as many as two issues which are as under- 6. Learned counsel for the husband submitted that the husband in his affidavit stated that on various occasions, the wife had not allowed him to intercourse with her, which amounts to cruelty. Husband further stated in his evidence that the wife has threatened him on telephone to commit suicide and also threatened him at his house with her family members for which the husband has also lodged a criminal complaint against the wife at Police Station, Bharatpur. Counsel for the husband further submitted that wife has insulted him in front of his family members and friends. 7. Learned counsel for the husband in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli 2006 4 SCC 558 decided on 21.03.2006, where in para No.84, 85, 86 & 87 it has been held as under:- “84. Even at this stage, the respondent does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again. 85. The High Court ought to have appreciated that there is no acceptable way in which the parties can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist. 85. The High Court ought to have appreciated that there is no acceptable way in which the parties can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist. 86. Undoubtedly, it is the obligation of the Court and all concerned that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. In the instant case, there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage. The course which has been adopted by the High Court would encourage continuous bickering, perpetual bitterness and may lead to immorality. 87. In view of the fact that the parties have been separately for more than 10 years and a very large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public interest than a dissolution of the marriage bond.” 8. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Lata Kumari Vs. Om Prakash Mandal ( MAT. APP. (F.C.) 92/2019 with CMAPPL.13891/2019 & 13893/2019) decided on 16.08.2023, in paras No.16 & 22 has held as under:- “16. It is a known fact that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is the conjugal relationship of which co-habitation forms a very strong basis. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the respondent that the appellant used to go away for a period of 15 days to 30 days at times without informing the respondent/husband and that she also withheld herself from cohabitation. Any denial of cohabitation by other spouse amounts to severe cruelty. This conduct was compounded by appellant’s frequently leaving the matrimonial home. Any denial of cohabitation by other spouse amounts to severe cruelty. This conduct was compounded by appellant’s frequently leaving the matrimonial home. Regular quarrels may be trivial when considered individually, however, collectively, these quarrels on a regular basis can not only disrupt the mental peace but also become a source of mental agony. 22. These assertions have been further buttressed by the allegation of illicit relationship made by the appellant against the respondent. No evidence whatsoever had been led to establish that respondent ever had any illicit relationship. This is almost like a final nail in the matrimonial relationship.” 9. In another judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Anita Vs. Amit Bhardwaj ( MAT. APP. (F.C.) 80/2019 ) decided on 15.09.2023 in para No.16 it has been held as under:- “16. The very fact that the parties were able to live together barely for ten months and since 23.09.2013, they have been living separately proves that the parties were unable to sustain their matrimonial relationship. For a couple to be deprived of each other’s company and of conjugal relationship, is an act of extreme cruelty.” 10. In the matter of Neeta Amar Vs. Vipul Amar (MAT. APP. (F.C.)178/2016) decided on 21.08.2023 the Delhi High Court in para No.50 has held as under:- “50. Hence, it is no more res integra that such reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publically tarnishing the image of the other spouse, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty. In the present case as well, the appellant always had doubts on the fidelity of her husband which necessarily led to harassment resulting in mental cruelty to the respondent/husband. The strongest pillars on which any marriage stands is trust, faith and respect, and thus, no person can reasonably be expected to put with such disrespectful conduct of their "significant other" who lacks faith in her partner. Any spouse not only expects their partner to respect them but also envisions that in times of need, the spouse would act as a shield to protect their image and reputation. Unfortunately, here is a case where the husband himself is being publically harassed, humiliated and verbally-attacked by his wife, who had gone to the extent of levelling allegation of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. Unfortunately, here is a case where the husband himself is being publically harassed, humiliated and verbally-attacked by his wife, who had gone to the extent of levelling allegation of infidelity during his office meetings in front of all his office staff/guests. She even took to harassing the woman workers of his office and left no stone unturned to portray him as a womanizer in the office. This behaviour is but an act of extreme cruelty to the respondent/husband.” 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of wife submitted that wife is ready to live with the husband even at this point. Counsel further submits that wife started living in Bharatpur where the husband was working. Counsel further submits that wife has left her Government job just to live with the husband. 12. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. We have considered the fact that the husband and wife are living separately since the year 2009. In the facts and circumstances came before us, we are of the view that there is no chance of their reunion. According to evidence of husband, when the wife was living with the husband, she did not allow him for sexual intercourse on various occasions. We have also considered the fact that wife has insulted the husband in front of shopkeeper while they went to see the Taj Mahal, which also amounts to cruelty with the husband. We have also considered the fact that the husband is living separately for more than 15 years and at this stage asking the parties to live together after a long time would amount to cruelty to both of them. We have also considered the fact that at the time of filing of the divorce petition, the wife was in Government Service at Gujarat. No documents were placed on record before the Family Court during the pendency of the divorce petition that later on, the wife resigned from her Government Service. Therefore, in absence of any such documents, it cannot be said that the wife has resigned from the Government Service and living at Bharatpur. 14. In view of the above discussion, the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court on the issue of cruelty is perverse and the same is set aside. 15. Therefore, in absence of any such documents, it cannot be said that the wife has resigned from the Government Service and living at Bharatpur. 14. In view of the above discussion, the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court on the issue of cruelty is perverse and the same is set aside. 15. As a result of conclusion arrived at by us in the foregoing paras, the husband is entitled for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. 16. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The husband is granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. The marriage solemnized between the parties stands dissolved. Decree be prepared accordingly.