The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of cruelty in lodging a false FIR amounted to cruelty and was not condoned. The court also clarified that irretrievably broken down marriage is not a ground for divorce.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Appellant/wife has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ambala, decreeing the petition filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) seeking a decree of divorce.

2. Pleaded case of the husband/respondent was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 31.1.1990 at Ambala Cantt according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties cohabited and lived together and out of this wed-lock 4 children i.e. three daughters and one son were born. Daughter named Ashta was born on 1.2.1991, whereas daughter Prerna was born on 24.6.93 and daughter Kripa and son Jawanshu were born as twins on 25.3.2000. Appellant/wife was stated to be spend-thrift. After the marriage the parties resided at the parental house of the respondent/husband at 154 Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt for few months only. The mother of the appellant was said to be interfering in the matrimonial life of the parties, and further that the appellant was also towing the lines of her mother.

3. It was also the case of the respondent/husband that the appellant/wife started pressurizing the respondent/husband to have a separate residence away from his parents. Constant interference and wasteful expenditure habits of the wife started creating tension in the family, and ultimately the husband got separated from his parents and took a house on rent in Arya Nagar. The case set up by respondent was that in spite of separate residence parents of the appellant continued interfering in the matrimonial life. The respondent/husband claimed that he had sufficient means and therefore, was providing all comforts of life to the appellant/wife but her demands increased day by day. When objected to, she started insulting the respondent. It was also the case of the husband that the mother of the respondent/wife was against the marriage and she was looking for an opportunity to let down the respondent/husband, but the respondent had been tolerating all this with a hope, that after birth of the children there would be sea change in the nature of the respondent. However, she did not change even after the birth of first child rather humiliation increased to the extent that the landlord got the house vacated. The respondent/husband kept on changing the rented accommodation. From Arya Nagar they shifted to the area of Janak Puri, where parties lived for about one year. Again on account of the attitude of the appellant/wife they had to shift to another rented accommodation. Therefrom also they had to shift because of the attitude of the appellant.

4. It was on account of the act and conduct of the appellant, and her mothers attitude, that the respondent was compelled to convene a panchayat comprising Shri R.S. Walia and Shri Vinod Walia in May, 1994. In the panchayat father of the appellant apologized for the acts of the appellant and promised that his wife i.e. the mother of the appellant would not interfere in the matrimonial life of the respondent. It was also decided in the panchayat that the parties would shift to parental house of the respondent but in spite of settlement the appellant again started creating scenes, and the visits of the mother of the appellant became a routine affair. Both the mother and the appellant humiliated the respondent. It was also the case of the respondent/husband that he was being pressured to claim share in the parental property. It was on account of this that he again had to shift to House No.182, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. The case set up further was that his parents refused to accept the demand of the respondent, for share, then the appellant/wife along with her mother hatched a conspiracy and got lodged FIR No.85 dated 23.5.1996 against the respondent/husband as well as his younger brother Neeraj for alleged commission of offences under sections 304B/511/306/511/