A spouse cannot take advantage of his or her own wrong by maltreating the other spouse and driving them out of the matrimonial home, and then seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. This is wifes appeal against decree of divorce granted on April 28, 1988, by Mr. M.L. Singal, Additional District Judge, Amritsar on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. Uncontroverted facts of the case are that wife-appellant was married to petitioner-respondent Kimti Lal on February 4, 1971. at Amritsar according to Hindu rites. The matrimonial home is at Tarn Taran. In this wedlock appellant Kailash Rani has given birth to three children, who were aged 13,11 and 10 years at the time when the petition was presented in the month of December 1986. Since November 1979 they are living separately. The children are with the mother. Appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC against the husband/father claiming maintenance for herself and her children, which is allowed by the Magistrates Court. Husband-respondent also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act), which was dismissed.

3. Petitioner-respondents contention in the lower Court was that after marriage for few months, Kailash Rani behaved properly with him and his family members. He is living with his mother, brothers and sisters. Thereafter she started pressing upon him to have a separate residence for both of them. He could not accede to her wishes as he was supporting his family. His father is not shouldering the responsibilities of the family. His brothers and sisters were unmarried when he filed the petition. Since her request was not acceded to, she started nagging him. At times she refused to cook food also. She not only misbehaved with him but with his mother, brothers and sisters also and sometimes with the children as well. Once she threatened him to commit suicide with a view to implicate whole of the family in a criminal case. Her behaviour towards him, his children and specially with his mother made him mentally upset. Thus, she treated him with mental cruelty. In the month of November, 1979, repudiating all marital obligations, she left the matrimonial roof and started living at her parental home along with children. Thereafter in the month of January, 1980, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in those proceedings she deposed that she is not prepared to cohabit with him. Maintenance is grated to her and to the children as well, which is being paid to them. He took panchayats also and many a times he himself asked the appellant-wife to come back to the matrimonial home, but she declined and thus she has deprived him of the pleasures of married life and thereby also she has treated him with cruelty. Alleging that he has not condoned her acts of cruelty, he claimed divorce on both these grounds under Section 13 of the Act.

4. Wife-appellant in her written statement repudiated all these allegations and asserted that she always behaved like a dutiful wife/daughter-in-law in the matrimonial home, but she was harassed and maltreated by her husband as was not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. He demanded cash for his business. As her father has died and her brother is not in good financial position to give the demanded cash to the husband, she was maltreated. Ultimately she was beaten and was turned out of the matrimonial house along with all the children. She has also denied that she ever threatened him to commit suicide/and to implicate the whole of his family in a criminal case. She filed maintenance petition, which is allowed. Thereafter the husband-respondent used to come to Amritsar at her parental home to pay her maintenance and on those occasions he used to reside with her for few days. Thus, both the grounds of cruelty and desertion are emphatically denied.

5. On these pleadings, issues wee framed. Parties adduced their evidence.

6. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the wife treated the husband with cruelty, threatened him to commit suicide with a view to implicate them all in a criminal case. She not only maltreated her husband but also her m