D. S. R. VARMA, J. :- This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgement, dated 10-5-1996, in O.P. No. 29 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nizambad, filed under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of the marriage.

2. The case of the appellant-husband is that his marriage with the respondent-wife took place on 16-5-1990 as per the prevailing Hindu customs and rites. According to him, soon after the marriage, his wife started harassing him, both mentally and physically, and threatened him saying that she would commit suicide and hold him responsible for that. She often used to beat him in public. He states that all his efforts to bring change in the attitude of the respondent, turned futile. Subsequently, the respondent left his company, lodged a complaint against him, his parents and sister under Section 498-A, IPC which was numbered as C.C. No. 80 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy, Nizamabad district, however, the same ended in acquittal by an order, dated 12-11-1993. The appellant got issued a legal notice, dated 5-5-1992, requiring the respondent to agree for mutual divorce, but she did not respond to the same. Hence, the appellant filed O.P. seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.

3. The respondent filed the counter denying the contentions of the appellant averred in the petition.

4. In support of his case, the appellant examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Ex. A1, certified copy of the judgement in C.C. 80 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Yellareddy. The respondent, in support of her case, examined R.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. B1 to B3.

5. In his evidence as P.W. 1, the appellant re-iterated and asserted the averments stated in the petition. P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed that they were the direct witnesses to the alleged harassment meted out by the appellant in the hands of the respondent. P.W. 4 spoke about the abusive and unparlia-mentary language used by the respondent against the appellant. Nothing useful material could be elicited from the cross-examination of the witnesses.

6. The trial Court, having considered the material available on record, both oral and documentary, eventually held that there was no adequate ground to grant divorce, and dismissed the O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the fact that the complaint filed by the respondent, under Section 498-A, IPC against the appellant and the members of his family, ended in acquittal itself goes to show the conduct of the respondent and the same amounts to subjecting the appellant to 'mental cruelty'. To that effect, he placed reliance upon the judgements in K. Radha Raju v. K. Seetharama Raju, 2001 (6) ALT 350 and Anagalla Padmalatha v. A. Sudershan Rao, 2000 (2) ALT 15 : AIR 2000 Andh Pra 353. He further contends that the respondent abused the appellant in unparliamentary language in public, defaming his image and causing mental agony and hence on that ground alone the appellant is entitled to divorce. In support thereof, he relied upon the judgement in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 : AIR 2005 SC 534.

8. In the back ground of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the evidence available on record, the only question that arises for consideration is as to 'whether the trial Court was right in refusing to grant divorce as prayed for by the appellant-husband'.

9. In this context, it is to be seen that undisputedly C.C. No. 80 of 1992, filed by the respondent against the appellant, his parents and sister, for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC ended in acquittal. It is further to be seen that C.C. was of the year 1992 and the order of acquittal was passed in 1993. This Court can take into account the effect of Section 498-A, IPC and the differences that arose between the spouses because of the said