Anil Verma, J.

1. Appellant/wife has preferred this first appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 4.10.2021 passed by First District Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCS HM No.1/2017, whereby respondent/husband's petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short HMA) for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and decree of divorce has been passed.

2. Admitted facts of the case are that marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized on 18.5.2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals and they blessed with a child Ansh, who is now living with appellant. It is also admitted fact that appellant/wife has lodged a FIR at Police Station Nateran, District Vidisha on 15.11.2017 and on the basis of said FIR, offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered against the respondent/husband and his family members and a criminal case is pending against the respondent before the Court of JMFC, Ganjbasoda. Earlier the respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA against the appellant, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. Brief facts of the case of the respondent/husband before the Trial Court are that after marriage the appellant/wife was continuously pressurizing him for shifting to some big city and used to close the doors and threatened that she will commit suicide and also threatened him that she will falsely implicate his entire family in a dowry case. Appellant/wife also left the matrimonial house voluntarily on 17.9.2014 with the ornament worth Rs.12,00,000/- and despite repeated efforts, she was not ready to live with him. Thereafter, respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ganjbasoda and the Case No.HMA 124A/2014 has been registered. Thereafter they blessed with a child. When the respondent along with his father went to the hospital to see his new born baby, then the appellant and his brothers committed marpeet and misbehaved with them. On 5.10.2015, appellant was ready to live with respondent. Thereafter the petition under Section 9 of HMA has been dismissed in absence of both the parties, but after one year on 23.12.2016 appellant along with her brothers and other persons came to the house of respondent and committed marpeet with him. Respondent sustained certain injuries and got admitted in the hospital. Family members of the appellant continuously misbehaved with the respondent and also threatened for life, thereafter false case has been lodged against him for demand of dowry and cruelty. Appellant was living separately in her parental house without any sufficient reason. In these circumstances, opportunity of further cohabitation became impracticable and unsustainable. Appellant has committed cruelty with him, therefore, respondent has filed this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. Appellant/wife before the Trial Court denied all these allegations by submitting in her reply that after marriage, she was harassed by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and they used to commit marpeet with her. Thereafter she lodged an FIR against the respondent and his family members at Police Station Nateran. She was always ready to live with her husband, but the respondent and his family members did not allow her to enter into their house. Divorce petition has been filed on frivolous grounds. Hence, prayed for its dismissal.

5. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Family Court framed certain issues and after recording and appreciating the evidence of both the parties, allowed the divorce petition filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty. Being aggrieved by aforesaid, appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that after marriage the appellant had been performing her matrimonial duties and due to their wedlock, she gave birth to one son, namely Ansh, who is presently living with the appellant. Leaned Trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the petition filed by the respondent without considering the prayer for permanent alimony. Mere assertion cannot prove the grounds for grant of decree of divorce. Appellant is in a situation of hand to mouth and is also unable to maintain her son. The conduct of the respondent can be considered that he has never cared about his son and never tried to maintain the appellant and her son. Hence, it is prayed that impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the petition for divorce filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the appellant/wife has committed cruelty with him and his family members and without any sufficient reason, she is living separately with him since last more than eight years. Hence, his appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Both the parties heard and perused the entire record with due care.

9. The pivotal question for consideration in the present appeal is that whether after solemnization the marriage, respondent was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the appellant/wife in the light of provisions enumerated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HM Act or not ?

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs. Mrs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 elaborately discussed the concept of "mental cruelty". The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

          ''The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances."(1) The Court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures. As said by Lord Reid in his speech in Gollins v. Gollins (2) ALL ER 966 "In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with the reasonable man, as we are in cases of negligence. We are dealing with this man and this woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we make about them the better. In cruelty cases one can hardly ever even start with a presumption that the parties are reasonable people, because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both the spouses think and behave as reasonable people."

11. The above-said judgment of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane (supra) still holds the field and is source of wisdom time and again in respect of ''mental cruelty''. The aforesaid decision was referred to with approval in the cases of Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta AIR 2002 SC 2582, Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, Manisha Tyagi Vs. Deepak Kumar (2020) 4 SCC 339, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Viswanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 and U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114.

12. Now, examining the case at the touchstone of principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-cited cases, suffice to say that the evidence led by appellant-wife clearly demonstrates that after solemnizing the marriage between both the parties in the year 2013, the appellant lived with her husband-respondent for a shorter period of time about one year and most of time, she has lived at her parental home and left house of husband in the year 2015 and without any reason did not return back even after filing the petition under Section 9 of HMA by the respondent. Although the appellant herself admits in her cross- examination that petition under Section 9 of HMA was dismissed due to the factum of compromise between both the parties but it shows that respondent/husband was willing to bring the appellant to save his matrimonial relationship. Thereafter, several opportunities have been given to the appellant for returning home, but she was not willing to live with her husband, although learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and they used to commit marpeet. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR against them and criminal case under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC is pending against the respondent and his family members, but from perusal of other documents available on record it appears that brothers and other family members of appellant committed marpeet with the respondent/husband. Accordingly, offence under Sections 293, 323, 506 (Part-II) of IPC has been registered as per order dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure P/11) passed by JMFC, Ganjbasoda.

13. On perusal of FIR Ex.P/12, it appears that offence under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the respondent on 15.11.2017 but prior registration of said offence, respondent has filed a complaint case Ex.P/8 before JMFC, Ganjbasoda on 2.8.2017. It clearly indicate that appellant has leveled false and frivolous allegation of cruelty and harassment against the respondent and his family members. Conduct of appellant also come in the purview of mental cruelty as discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane (supra).

14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 has also considered the instances of cruelty as well as the aspects of irretrievable breakdown and held that same can be made a ground for divorce. Further, in the case of Shri Rakesh Raman vs. Smt. Kavita 2023 Live Law (SC) 353, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that long separation, in absence of cohabitation and complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between the husband and wife, has to be read as "cruelty" under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the HM Act.

15. On the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, it appears that marriage of both the parties was solemnized on 18.5.2013 and one child Ansh has born out from their wedlock and after marriage most of the period the appellant deserted her husband and left the house of husband without any sufficient reason and avoided to come back her husband's home. It is not the first incident, but thereafter on repeated occasions quarrel has been made between both the families and they have made complaint against each other. The entire conduct of appellant/wife is sufficient to proof that she does not want to live with her husband/respondent and she wants to live with her husband only with the condition that if the respondent keeps her in any big city. The motive of appellant is apparent that she does not want to live with her husband and in-laws and her allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty do not appear to be trustworthy.

16. Therefore, in the backdrop of fact that marriage between them did not last for more than four years and both of them have been living separately for the last over eight years, apparently marriage is irretrievable, as love is lost and emotions are dried up, as evidence from demeanour of the parties out of their wedlock there is one child. There is no possibility of any reconciliation between the parties. There is no hope about cohabitation between them in future. Matrimonial bond has been completely ruptured beyond repair. It has become impossible to reunite parties. Marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation.

17. On the basis of aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has been subjected to mental and physical cruelty in the hands of his wife/appellant and she was adamant to live on her own terms and conditions. Therefore, findings given by the Trial Court is based upon the cogent evidence available on record and respondent is rightly deserves for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and we found no ground to interfere with the decree of dissolution of marriage.

18. So far as the question of grant of one-time settlement as full and final settlement is concerned, in the matrimonial cases, the Court has to ascertain the financial capacity/status of parties depending on source of income and expenditure for determining amount of maintenance/permanent alimony/full and final settlement/one-time settlement, this Court left with no other option, but to think it just and proper to allow one-time settlement in the shape of full and final settlement to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of appellant, which is payable to the appellant by the respondent by way of Demand Draft or any other mode within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Subject to aforesaid full and final settlement/one- time settlement granted in favour of the appellant, a decree of divorce be drawn accordingly.

19. Accordingly, the instant first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed and under the said provisions of Section 25 of HMA as one-time full and final settlement as permanent alimony, the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lacs Only) through Bank Draft to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.