JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. (Oral)--The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assails the judgment and decree dated 19.01.20018, passed by the learned Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi, in HMA No.817/2017, titled as "V.S. vs. M.", whereby the petition for divorce instituted on behalf of the respondent/husband was decreed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at length and perused the Trial Court record, it is evident that the respondent/husband has been able to successfully establish the following circumstances against the appellant/wife:

i. That the husband has been harassed and treated with cruelty by the wife by using derogatory language against him and his family members;

ii. That the husband tried his best to bring back the wife from her parental home, but the latter was not agreeable to join him in her matrimonial home;

iii. That the wife made various complaints against the husband and his family members inter alia, levelling serious allegations regarding having furnished false date of birth of husband, as well as, being involved in various criminal cases pending before Courts; taking leave from service by furnishing false medical certificates; using warrant of third parties for the travel of members of his immediate family; giving illegal gratification to the ticket checker on the Rajdhani Express train and harassing and torturing her; resulting in enquiries against the husband which were subsequently found to be patently untrue.

iv. That the wife levelled false allegations against the husband regarding demand of dowry;

v. That the wife falsely alleged in the written statement that her husband did not permit her parents to see their newly born child, as a result of which her mother passed away in shock.

vi. That there had been no cohabitation between the parties since 16.01.2012, the marriage having been solemnized on 17.11.2010 and that the wife would refuse to answer the question during her cross-examination as to whether she wished to reside with her husband.

3. The above findings are inter alia predicated on the husband having averred and proved by leading cogent evidence that the wife had been using abusive language against him and his family members as follows:

"Ki Jaise Main Kehti Hoom Vaise Hi Karo varna Tere Aur Tere Kahndaan ko Jaan se mardungi aur tume pata bhi nahin chalega tumhare saath kya hua, Meri saari Shartein Maan Lo Varna Tumahra aur Tumhare Pariwar Walon Ka Vo Haal Karungi Ki Tum Soch Bhi Nahn paoge aur tumhe jhuthe mukadme main fasa dungi aur teri chhati par saap ban kar rahungi aur tu mera kuch bhi nahin kar sakega...

Kil Kil Ke Marega Na to tu mere saath rehne layak reahega aur nahi mere se alag hone layak rahega..

Mera Baap workers Union Ka Leader Hai aur IAS IPS officers ka hamare ghar aana jana hai tu aur tere parivar ko wo haal hoga jo tune sapne main bhi nahi socha hoga. Tera to Baap Bhi Mar chukka hai aur teri maa to bimari se laachar hai, tere aage peeche koi nahin hai jo tujhe dahej ke case se bacha sakega isliye jaise main kehti hoon waisa tu kar. Tu Biwi Nahi apna Kaal Ghar Mein Le Kar Aaya hai."

4. It is relevant to observe that the asseverations made on behalf of the husband, have not been denied by the wife, nor was any attempt made by the latter to cross-examine the former, to test the veracity of the instances of the wife employing abusive language.

5. Further, the husband has been able to establish through cogent evidence that the wife made various complaints against him with the Air Force Headquarters, New Delhi, of which he is an employee, levelling serious allegations against him and his family members which resulted in an enquiry. The enquiry concluded that the same were false and untenable. In this behalf, it is observed that the wife, in her own deposition, admitted that she had filed a complaint against the husband on 12.09.2013 before Air Force Headqua