JUDGMENT : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the decree of divorce granted, on the petition filed by the respondent husband, the wife is in the appeal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows: (1) On 22.5.2003, the marriage between the parties to this appeal was solemnized and as a result of this marriage, a son was born to the couple in the year 2005. (2) According to the averments made in the petition filed by the husband, which are also affirmed by the Family Court, the couple separated on 12.10.2005 and have been residing separately ever since. (3) On 26.3.2013, the husband instituted a family suit seeking for a dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, alleging that he was treated with cruelty and had been deserted. (4) The husband contended that the wife abused him about his physical disability and constantly stated that she had been engaged to one Manish and actually wanted to marry him but was forced to marry him against her wishes. He also stated that she used to use abusive language to defame him and also used to visit the place of his work and that of his father and abused them in front of their co-employees which was an unpardonable act. (5) He Stated that after the wife had deserted him in 2005 she had gone on to conduct a very important religious ceremony (hair removing ceremony of his only son) without even informing him, which also amounted to inflicting of a cruelty. (6) He also stated that the wife had filed a false criminal complaint (private complaint) making false allegations and in these proceedings, after trial, the husband was acquitted. It was also stated that she, thereafter, preferred an appeal but chose to withdraw the same, which itself proved that false complaints were filed against him, which also amounted to cruelty. (7) The wife entered appearance and contested the proceedings. She denied every assertion of the husband, and she went on to state that she had been thrown out of her matrimonial home. She contended that her husband was not entitled for divorce after having neglected her and her son and not bothering to take care of either of them. (7) The wife entered appearance and contested the proceedings. She denied every assertion of the husband, and she went on to state that she had been thrown out of her matrimonial home. She contended that her husband was not entitled for divorce after having neglected her and her son and not bothering to take care of either of them. (8) It may be pertinent to note here that it is not in dispute that the wife had instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of interim maintenance and the Family Court had granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month in the year 2013 which was regularly paid by the the husband. (9) The Family Court on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced before it, recorded a finding that the husband and the wife were living separately since 2005 and the husband had filed a petition 8 years after their separation in the year 2013 and the husband had thus established that he had been deserted for more than a period of two years as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. (10) The Family Court also recorded a finding that the wife had left the house on her own and had not made any efforts to come back to the matrimonial home. (11) The Family Court also recorded that the wife had indeed lodged a private complaint against her husband and his parents for the offences under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , but the Criminal Court had refused to issue summons to the parents and only issued notice to the husband. It recorded that the Criminal Court had acquitted the husband, and the wife had challenged the acquittal order by filing an appeal but had chosen to withdraw the same. (12) The Family Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the wife had filed a false complaint against the husband which also amounted to cruelty. (13) The Family Court recorded a finding that the husband was not invited for the hair removing ceremony and this had been established from the fact that nobody from the wife’s family had visited he husband’s house to invite them. (13) The Family Court recorded a finding that the husband was not invited for the hair removing ceremony and this had been established from the fact that nobody from the wife’s family had visited he husband’s house to invite them. It also recorded a finding that in the hair removing ceremony, which was a significant religious ceremony, not inviting the father of the son, i.e. the respondent-husband in the present case, amounted to cruelty. (14) The Family Court also took note of the fact that the wife during the course of deposition, was in habit of refusing to give answers to the questions and got into the arguments with the counsel on more than one occasion. It also took note of the fact that in the proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the minor son had addressed a letter to the Court alleging that his mother was ill-treating him and abusing him. (15) The Family Court in the light of the findings recorded above, proceeded to come to the conclusion that the husband had established both the grounds i.e. desertion and cruelty, and he was, therefore, entitled for grant of decree of divorce. The Family Court, however, did not award any permanent alimony to the wife. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- wife submitted that the findings recorded by the Family Court were improper and the respondent-husband had failed to establish both the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It was submitted that the husband had thrown the wife out from her matrimonial home and was trying to take advantage of his own wrong, which is impermissible in law. Learned counsel sought to contend that the husband had basically abandoned the wife and the son and had made no attempt to get the wife back to his home and he had not taken care to ascertain the needs of the son. It was also argued that the husband was completely unaware about the present status of the son’s education and this itself indicated that the order of the Family Court was not justified. Learned counsel also submitted that the Family Court had committed serious error in not awarding permanent alimony and the wife was forced to live with a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, which was awarded more than 12 years ago. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that the Family Court had committed serious error in not awarding permanent alimony and the wife was forced to live with a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, which was awarded more than 12 years ago. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- husband, on the other hand, contended that the Family Court had no other option but to record a clear finding that the wife had not only deserted the husband since 2005 but during their cohabitation, she was guilty of treating the husband with cruelty constantly. It was also submitted that the husband and the wife had been residing separately since 2005, i.e. since past two decades, and, therefore, interfering with an order of divorce which basically affirmed the separation, should not be permitted. 5. In light of the above, the questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the Family Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the husband had established that he had been deserted and treated with cruelty by his wife and whether the Family Court was justified in not granting any permanent alimony to the wife while granting the decree of divorce in favour of the husband. 6. The husband categorically stated in his pleadings and reiterated the same during his deposition that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 12.10.2005 and they have been residing separately ever since. 7. The Family Court on the basis of the cross-examination and also the statements of the wife has recorded a finding that the wife admitted that she was residing separately from the husband since 12.10.2005. The Family Court has taken note of the fact that the petition for divorce was filed 8 years after their separation, i.e. in the year 2013, and thus, the prescribed period of two years preceding the date of institution of the petition for divorce for establishing desertion had been established. 8. In our view, since there is a clear finding recorded by the Family Court on the basis of the wife’s cross-examination, that they were residing separately since 2005, the ground of desertion has rightly been proved and thus, the Family Court was justified in recording the finding that the husband had been deserted by the wife. 9. The wife had also not pleaded or established that she had any reasonable cause for her deserting the husband. 9. The wife had also not pleaded or established that she had any reasonable cause for her deserting the husband. Apart from making the allegation that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, she has not adduced any credible to establish that she had a justifiable cause for staying away from the husband. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Family Court that the husband had established that he had been deserted by the wife over a period of 8 years, does not require any interference in the appeal. 10. As far as the cruelty is concerned, the Family Court has recorded a finding that the allegation of the husband that he and his father were abused at the workplace and the wife was defaming them had not been established. 11. However, the Family Court has taken note of the evidence which indicated that the wife had filed a private criminal complaint against the husband and her in-laws alleging the commission of the offence under Section 498(A) of INDIAN PENAL CODE and in this proceeding, the Criminal Court had refused to issue summons to her in-laws and had issued notice only to the husband. The Family Court has taken note of the fact that the husband had in fact been arrested and subsequently, after trial, he had been acquitted. 12. It has also taken note of the fact that an appeal had been filed by the wife against the order of acquittal, but the same was withdrawn and these facts by themselves establish that a false complaint had been lodged by her against the husband and he had been forced to undergo the agony of trial. In our view, in the light of the settled position of law relating to filing of false complaints, the Family Court was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the filing of the false complaint amounted to cruelty. 13. The Family Court has recorded a finding that for a very important ceremony, i.e. hair removing ceremony of their only son, the husband and his family members were not invited. The Family Court has refused to accept the plea of the wife that she had informed the husband and his relatives. 13. The Family Court has recorded a finding that for a very important ceremony, i.e. hair removing ceremony of their only son, the husband and his family members were not invited. The Family Court has refused to accept the plea of the wife that she had informed the husband and his relatives. The Family Court in order to arrive at this conclusion, has taken note of the wife’s statement that neither her brother or father or her mother had gone to her husband’s house for inviting them for the hair removing ceremony. If the wife had admitted that the hair removing ceremony was extremely important in their community, the Family Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the wife had acted cruelly against her husband by not inviting him and his family members for such an important family function. 14. It is to be stated here that the husband and the wife had only one son and for a religious ceremony of great significance, if the wife chose to perform the ceremony in absence of her husband, that by itself would establish that she wanted to keep the husband away from her son’s life and also from her life. In our view, this conduct clearly amounts cruelty. 15. The Family Court has also recorded a finding that even during the deposition, the wife was in the habit of arguing with the counsel rather giving answers to the questions posed to her. The Family Court took note of the fact that it was forced to instruct her to reply properly to the questions asked on two occasions. In our view, this conduct of the wife in Court would also establish that her intention was not to cohabit with her husband in a cordial manner and this fact would indicate that she was abusive towards her husband during their stay together. 16. The Family Court also took note of the fact that minor son Ayush had addressed a letter in the proceedings, that had been initiated by the wife for maintenance, to the effect that his mother was not treating him properly and he was being physically beaten and was not permitted to meet his father. 16. The Family Court also took note of the fact that minor son Ayush had addressed a letter in the proceedings, that had been initiated by the wife for maintenance, to the effect that his mother was not treating him properly and he was being physically beaten and was not permitted to meet his father. The Family Court has recorded a finding that this letter of the minor son was confirmed by him during his appearance before the Court and this itself would indicate that it was not possible for the husband and the wife to live together. 17. In this regard, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Raman v. Kavita , (2023) 17 SCC 433 , would be relevant, wherein it has been held as follows:- “21. The view taken by the Delhi High Court in the present case that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty as what has also to be seen are the circumstances under which cases were filed, is a finding we do not wish to disregard totally, in fact as a pure proposition of law it may be correct, but then we must also closely examine the entire facts of the case which are now before us. When we take into consideration the facts as they exist today, we are convinced that continuation of this marriage would mean continuation of cruelty, which each now inflicts on the other. 22. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty” 23. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. 28. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. 28. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.” In the light of this declaration of law, it is obvious that the long separation and the fact that continuation of the marital bounds would only amount to perpetuate cruelty against both the husband and the wife and in this background, the grant of divorce by the Family Court cannot be found fault with. 18. Further, the Family Court’s observations in this regard would clearly indicate that the wife was treating not only the husband but also the minor son in a cruel manner. It was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the ground of cruelty has also been established. In that view of the matter, the grant of divorce of dissolving the marriage cannot be found fault with. 19. However, it is being noticed that the wife has been awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This sum was awarded in the year 2013, i.e. 12 years ago, and the same has remained static. 20. In our view, having regard to the long lapse of time and taking into consideration the fall in value of rupee, it would be appropriate to direct the husband to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11 lacs as permanent alimony to the wife. 21. 20. In our view, having regard to the long lapse of time and taking into consideration the fall in value of rupee, it would be appropriate to direct the husband to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11 lacs as permanent alimony to the wife. 21. On the amount of Rs.11 lacs being deposited by the husband, the liability of the husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code shall cease to be operative as the order passed in these proceedings, which are for divorce, would supersede the orders passed in summary proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. The appeal is, therefore, DISPOSED OF, confirming the decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband, but at the same time, directing the respondent-husband to deposit a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs only) before the concerned Family Court within a period of THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 23. On such deposit being made, the appellant-wife shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount after due verification.