The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of a false criminal case, along with other acts of mistreatment, can constitute cruelty justifying the dissolution of a marriage under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge (F), Shimla dissolving the marriage between the parties to this appeal by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruel1ty as pleaded by the respondent/husband.

2. Petition under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was instituted by the respondent-husband. It was pleaded that the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 7.3.2000 at Village Bagoti. The case pleaded by the respondent/husband is that immediately after the marriage, the appellant herein started treating the respondent with cruelty. Number of grounds were urged before the learned trial Court to substantiate this plea. Primarily amongst them were: (a) That the appellant used to leave the matrimonial home without informing the petitioner or his parents which act, she had been committing on number of occasions. To paraphrase, the incident referred to above (i) the appellant refused to cook food for the family members stating that she did not know how to cook as the mother had been doing this for her. (ii) On 8.4.2000 she left the home at night and returned only in the morning and refused to disclose her whereabouts. (iii) On 7.4.2000, the respondent had joined Army but on account of cruel behaviour of the appellant herein he was being subjected to lot of pressure and left service in October 2000. (iv) The appellant had herself aborted twice by taking medicines/drugs provided by her mother. On 27.2.2001 when the respondent went to the house of the parents of the appellant, requested her to join company with him but she refused. (v) On 1.3.2001 when the respondent inquired from the appellant as to whether she had brought any prescription slip from the doctor, she opened her purse and threw the slip into the harth. (vi) on 3.3.2001, the appellant refused to water the catttle though her mother-in- law requested her to do so as she was not well. She threw a tan trum, throwing out the bag containing clothing etc. and ran away from the house. (vii) On 17.3.2001, 25.3.2001, 7.4.2001 the parents of the respondent along with his father and Daya Nand, as also vice president Gram Panchayat Barog Dharam Parkash and Sunder Lal Verma went to the house of the appellant to bring her back but she refused to comply with the request. (viii) On 8.4.2001 she returned with reluctance but again on 7.6.2001 she fled away. It is also pleaded that she taken away keys of the house and ornaments etc. On 24.6.2001 and on other dates as detailed, same action and behaviour was resorted to by her. (b) The second ground alleged is that a false case under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondent and his family members as a result they had to obtain bail as well as face trial for a period of about 3 years and ultimately they were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate,Theog on 29th September, 2004 after a full-fledged trial, as such respondent and his entire family members were subjected to harasment which amounts to curelty. This is in a nut shell is the case set out by the respondent.

3. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties, concluded that it was proved on record that the appellant had left for her parental home on number of occasions without any justifiable cause or informing the petitioner, as also instituted a criminal case without any justifiable cause. The learned Court held that the acts of the appellant in isolation as well as jointly constitute cruelty justifying grant of decree for divorce as prayed for. While concluding , the Court held that the parties had been residing separately for the last more than two years before the institution of the divorce petition (petition was instituted on 11.1.2005). It rejected the explanation given by the appellant for leaving the company of the respondent without sufficient cause.

4. On the other two issues