1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petition seeking annulment of the marriage has been allowed holding that the respondent has successfully established mental cruelty inflicted upon him by the appellant and additionally that without any reasonable cause the appellant abandoned the matrimonial consortium between the couple two years preceding to the filing of the petition.

3. Case pleaded by the respondent was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.2.2009 as per Hindu custom. Immediately after marriage the appellant raised a demand that the residential house which was in the name of the respondent's mother be transferred in her name. That on trivial issues the appellant would use abusive language and threaten that she would entangle the respondent by filing false cases. That without informing him or his mother the appellant would go to the house of her parents. That she was constantly chatting with males on the internet. That he received threatening messages. That the appellant left the matrimonial house and when she did not return he served a notice to which she replied on 2.4.2011 refusing to return and live with him. Since the appellant did not return the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to which the appellant filed a written statement that she would not reside with him and thus he withdrew the petition. That the appellant lodged a complaint with the police pursuant whereof FIR for offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC was registered. After investigation the police filed a closure report.

Protest petition filed by the appellant was rejected and the closure report was accepted. That another false FIR for offences punishable under Section 323/341 IPC was got registered by the appellant at the instance of her brother.

4. In the written statement filed the appellant denied the assertions made against her and pleaded that the cause for her to withdraw from the matrimonial house was she being troubled for dowry in sum of Rs. 5 lacs.

5. At the trial the respondent appeared as his witness and examined his mother as AW2. The appellant examined herself as her witness and her father as NAW2.

6. Holding that the respondent could not prove that the appellant ever demanded that house in his mother's name be transferred to her and could not prove that the appellant was in communication on the internet with males and no threat was ever extended to him, findings have been returned in favour of the respondent on the reasoning that his attempt that the appellant should live with him failed when he sought restitution of conjugal rights. The acts of cruelty in the form of a false complaint for dowry harassment proved by the fact that inspite of the protest petition filed by the appellant the learned Magistrate accepted the closure report establishes mental cruelty.

7. The learned trial Judge has also accepted the version of the respondent that the appellant would pick up quarrel on some issues. At the trial it surfaced that the appellant continued her education post marriage and obtained a Ph.D. degree.

8. In matrimonial cases there is a tendency of the parties to exaggerate their respective versions and from the testimony of the parties and their witnesses we find that more often than not the exaggerated versions are deposed to by way of examination-in-chief, as in the instant case where cross-examination and examination-in-chief is weak the only material before the Court is to probablize the true versions.

9. That the appellant was pursuing her academic studies and completed Ph.D. post marriage is proved. The appellant is an empowered woman. At the trial she or her mother could not prove dowry demands and indeed FIR lodged by the appellant for offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC resulted in a closure report.

10. The tendency of the appellant to somehow or the other nail the respondent is evinced by an order dated 25th May, 2017 passed in the