JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant/husband assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Chief Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Case No. HMA/732/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Family Court. 2. Before learned trial Court, It is an admitted position between the parties that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized on 30.05.2009 at Durg (Chhattisgarh) in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. 3. Plaintiff/husband filed application under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce before the Family Court on the ground that his marriage with the defendant/wife was solemnized on 30.05.2009 at Durg, Chhattisgarh, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The couple has no issue. The plaintiff, presently serving as ITI Manager at the Central Bank of India, Ambikapur, is the only son of his parents. After marriage, the defendant joined him at Hyderabad, where he was posted at the time, but within a month she returned to her parental home at Raipur. Thereafter, she used to visit occasionally but refused to cohabit or perform her marital obligations, citing excuses of ill- health and disinterest. It is further alleged that even after the plaintiff’s transfer to Ambikapur in 2013, the defendant stayed only for a few days and again declined to resume conjugal relations, stating that the marriage was forced upon her. She threatened to commit suicide if compelled to maintain physical relations. Despite several efforts by the plaintiff and his relatives since 2009 to persuade her to live with him, she continuously refused and has been residing at her parental home since May 2014, causing him mental and physical agony. The plaintiff/husband sent a notice on 30.01.2017, which was refused by the defendant/wife, and thereafter filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Durg, which was later transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, pursuant to Transfer Petition No. 17/2017 before this Court. The plaintiff/husband sent a notice on 30.01.2017, which was refused by the defendant/wife, and thereafter filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Durg, which was later transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, pursuant to Transfer Petition No. 17/2017 before this Court. On these grounds, the appellant seeks a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized on 30.05.2009. 4. In her written statement, the defendant/wife has admitted the averments contained in paragraph 2.3 of the divorce petition and denied all other allegations. She has stated that she has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 06.09.2018, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which is presently pending. The defendant/wife has alleged that the plaintiff/husband being a devotee of Sadhvi Nirmala Devi, has been deeply involved in yoga practices since the time of marriage, due to which he has shown disinterest in marital relations and has never desired to have children. It is further alleged that the plaintiff/husband did not initially take her to Hyderabad after marriage and only did so at the insistence of his parents. Even thereafter, he expressed that the marriage was forced upon him and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. He regularly visited Nirmala Devi’s ashram, returning home late at night, neglected her, and often harassed her by withholding money and making threats. Despite this, the defendant/wife continued to reside with the plaintiff/husband at Hyderabad from 2009 to 2013 and later at Ambikapur after his transfer. She has further stated that the plaintiff’s transfer to Ambikapur was purely departmental and not on family grounds. He continued his yoga practices there and failed to maintain marital relations. The defendant/wife was left at her parental home in May 2014 and was not kept with him thereafter. She was compelled to issue a legal notice dated 07.03.2017 and file a maintenance case. Despite her willingness to resume marital life, the plaintiff persistently refused. The earlier divorce petition filed by the plaintiff before the Family Court, Durg, was withdrawn to evade financial liability, and the present petition has been filed thereafter. On these grounds, the defendant/wife has prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff/husband seeking decree of divorce. 5. Despite her willingness to resume marital life, the plaintiff persistently refused. The earlier divorce petition filed by the plaintiff before the Family Court, Durg, was withdrawn to evade financial liability, and the present petition has been filed thereafter. On these grounds, the defendant/wife has prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff/husband seeking decree of divorce. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Family Court framed the requisite issues and, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 13.12.2023, dismissed the application preferred by the plaintiff/husband. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/husband submits that the impugned judgment and decree suffer from grave illegality, impropriety, and misappreciation of facts and evidence. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the Respondent subjected the Appellant to cruelty and willfully denied him the joys and obligations of matrimonial life. Learned Family Court, contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record, erred in not holding that the Respondent had inflicted mental cruelty upon the Appellant by avoiding all matrimonial and conjugal relations and by making no effort to establish a normal marital life. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the Respondent, without any reasonable cause, refused to cohabit with the Appellant and returned to her parental home merely a month after marriage, on various pretexts. The learned Family Court ignored the material evidence showing that, even after the Appellant’s transfer to Ambikapur (District Surguja) to stay near the Respondent’s family, she continued to refuse physical relationship, expressed her unwillingness to the marriage, and threatened to commit suicide if compelled to cohabit. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial home under the pretext of pursuing a B.Ed. degree and never returned, despite repeated requests and even during her father-in-law’s illness. Since May 2014, the Respondent has willfully deserted the Appellant without any justifiable cause, despite his consistent efforts to resume cohabitation. She further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the Appellant’s consistent conduct demonstrating his bona fide intention to continue the matrimonial relationship. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate the cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the Appellant establishing mental cruelty, harassment, and neglect by the Respondent. The impugned judgment suffers from gross misappreciation of evidence and an erroneous interpretation of the pleadings and evidence on record. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate the cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the Appellant establishing mental cruelty, harassment, and neglect by the Respondent. The impugned judgment suffers from gross misappreciation of evidence and an erroneous interpretation of the pleadings and evidence on record. The learned Family Court erred in granting findings in favour of the Respondent despite apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in her pleadings and evidence. Lastly, it is submitted that the parties have been residing separately since the year 2014, and there exists no possibility of resumption of cohabitation between them. The period of separation now extends to more than eleven years, clearly demonstrating an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan ; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Family Court, after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly passed the judgment and decree. He further submits that, in the event the decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant, a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- may be awarded to the respondent towards permanent alimony. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is an admitted position in the present case that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.05.2009 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. 10.On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned Family Court framed the following issues:- 11.In para 15 of his cross-examination, appellant/husband (A.W.-1) stated that when he took the respondent/wife with him to Hyderabad, his mother had also accompanied them. He further stated that he was residing in a two-bedroom (2 BHK) flat in Hyderabad. He deposed that he was employed in a bank at Hyderabad and was assigned night duty from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. He stated that due to his night duty, he did not stay with his wife at night. He also stated that he had not made any request to the bank to exempt him from night duty on account of his marriage. He stated that due to his night duty, he did not stay with his wife at night. He also stated that he had not made any request to the bank to exempt him from night duty on account of his marriage. He clarified that it was his own statement that he did not make such a request to the bank. He further stated that owing to his night duty in Hyderabad, he did not have physical relations with his wife at night after the marriage. 12. The respondent/wife (N.A.W.-1) admitted that she has been residing separately from her husband since the year 2014. In para 10 of her cross-examination, she voluntarily stated that the appellant was not of good conduct and did not wish to lead a matrimonial life. She further stated that it was not her desire to continue the marital relationship with the appellant. Further, in para 11, she stated that after the institution of the case, she neither spoke to the plaintiff/husband over the phone nor maintained any other form of contact with him. She further stated that she did not visit the plaintiff’s family during their occasions of joy or sorrow. She denied the suggestion that she had not gone to meet the plaintiff’s mother despite being aware that she was suffering from paralysis and was undergoing treatment at Raipur. She stated that despite the cruel behavior of the plaintiff, she had filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights. She further stated that she had not instituted any criminal proceedings against the plaintiff on the ground of cruelty. 13. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that both the parties have admitted that they have been living separately since the year 2014. It is also admitted by the respondent/wife and her father that the respondent had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, which was subsequently withdrawn by her. 14. Vide judgment dated 13.03.2024 , in the matter of Smt. Rashmi Kashyap Vs. Hemant Kumar Kashyap passed in FA (MAT) No. 61 of 2021 , this Court held in paras 11 and 12 as under:- “11. 14. Vide judgment dated 13.03.2024 , in the matter of Smt. Rashmi Kashyap Vs. Hemant Kumar Kashyap passed in FA (MAT) No. 61 of 2021 , this Court held in paras 11 and 12 as under:- “11. In the matter of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the Court of other misus other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made. 12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.Srinivasa Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 held at paragraphs 30 and 31, which read as under: "30. It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, 2007 4 SCC 511 , if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But. As held in Samar Ghosh, 2007 4 SCC 511 , if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But. where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the Ved courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree.” 15. In light of above, from the pleadings and evidence available on record, it is undisputed that the marriage between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 30.05.2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is further admitted by both parties that they have been residing separately since May 2014 and that there has been no resumption of cohabitation thereafter. The appellant/husband has alleged that the respondent/wife, without any justifiable reason, withdrew from his company and refused to discharge her marital obligations. It is also his case that despite repeated efforts on his part and that of his family members to bring her back to the matrimonial home, the respondent continued to live at her parental house and refused to resume cohabitation, thereby causing him mental cruelty. On the other hand, the respondent/wife has admitted in her cross- examination that she has been living separately from the appellant since 2014. She has further stated that the appellant was not of good conduct and did not wish to lead a matrimonial life. She also deposed that it was not her desire to continue the marital relationship with the appellant. Her statement clearly reflects her unwillingness to resume the matrimonial bond and to lead a conjugal life with the appellant. The respondent has also admitted that after the institution of the present proceedings, she neither spoke to the appellant over the phone nor maintained any form of contact with him. She further admitted that she did not visit the appellant’s family during their occasions of joy or sorrow. The respondent has also admitted that after the institution of the present proceedings, she neither spoke to the appellant over the phone nor maintained any form of contact with him. She further admitted that she did not visit the appellant’s family during their occasions of joy or sorrow. Although she denied the suggestion that she avoided visiting the appellant’s mother despite being aware of her illness, her overall testimony reveals that she has chosen to completely distance herself from the matrimonial relationship since 2014. It is further admitted by the respondent/wife and her father that she had earlier filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, but subsequently withdrew the same. The withdrawal of such an application, without any satisfactory explanation, indicates a lack of intention on the part of the respondent to resume cohabitation or continue the marital relationship. From the cumulative effect of the evidence on record, it is established that the parties have been living separately for more than eleven years and that there is no possibility of reconciliation between them. The long separation, coupled with the respondent’s admitted unwillingness to continue the marital relationship, clearly constitutes mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant/husband has successfully established that the respondent/wife treated him with mental cruelty by consistently refusing to discharge her matrimonial obligations, withdrawing from his company without reasonable cause, and maintaining a prolonged separation since 2014. The marital relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down, and there exists no likelihood of its revival. 16. Looking to the above discussion, the findings given by the learned Family court are not based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence nor according to law. Hence, the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2023 deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 30.05.2009 shall stand dissolved by a decree of divorce. 17.Now, adverting to the question of permanent alimony payable to the respondent/wife, this Court, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, and the prevailing cost of living, deems it just and proper to grant a reasonable amount towards permanent alimony. Accordingly, the appellant/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17.Now, adverting to the question of permanent alimony payable to the respondent/wife, this Court, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, and the prevailing cost of living, deems it just and proper to grant a reasonable amount towards permanent alimony. Accordingly, the appellant/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) to the respondent/wife as permanent alimony within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 19.Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.