The main legal point established in the judgment is that false allegations of adultery amount to cruelty, but when substantiated, do not constitute cruelty. The court also emphasized that the social status and environment of the parties should be considered in determining claims for divorce.

S.S. Saron, J. - This Appeal has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby her petition for the grant of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty has been dismissed.

2. Smt. Jasbir Kaur the appellant herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act for short) for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. Marriage between the parties was solemnized about 17 years before the filing of the petition which was filed on 29.7.1988 according to Sikh rites at village Shadipur, Police Station Ghula, District Kurukshetra. After marriage the parties lived as husband and wife at village Nurpur District Sangrur, for about seven years. The parties had two sons namely Joginder Singh and Amarjit Singh. Thereafter the parties shifted to Patiala at Jujhar Nagar, Patiala, and lived there till 1981. It is alleged that during the stay of the appellant at village Nurpur, the respondent husband and his other family members used to nag, taunt, maltreat and misbehave with her. They were demanding dowry and other articles in cash or kind. The respondent is stated to be a Nihang Sikh and addicted to excessive intoxications. The appellant after seven years of marriage had shifted to Patiala, took a house on rent and with two buffaloes which she took from her parents started a dairy. The respondent never used to come to the house and he always remained with the caravan of the Nihangs and with bad company. Whenever he came he used to say to prepare meal of 30-35 persons. It is further stated that in June 1981, the respondent committed a murder in Jujhar Nagar, Patiala, in which the appellant and her brother were also involved along with the respondent. In the said case the appellant and her brother were tried by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Patiala and were acquitted in January 1983. The appellant and her minor children took a house on rent at Dhaka Colony, Patiala, and the respondent went to his village Nurpur alongwith his parents. After that the respondent never came nor met his minor children. Neither did he pay anything towards maintenance to the appellant or to his children. Now the appellant and her children were spending their days with meagre income. About 10 days earlier to the filing of the petition, the respondent is stated to have come along with some 8-9 other Nihangs at late hours and he started abusing the appellant in the presence of her brother Kashmir Singh and one Gurbux Singh. The respondent gave burchha blows to the outer-wooden door of the house of the appellant, threw brick-bats in the courtyard and threatened the appellant with dire consequences. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for the grant of divorce.

3. The respondent - Balbir Singh filed his written statement. The factum of marriage between the parties and the children from the wedlock has been admitted. It was however stated that the parties resided at village Nurpur, for about nine years and then they lived at Patiala, upto June 1988. i.e. immediately before the filing of the petition for divorce by the appellant. The allegations of negging, taunting, maltreatment and misbehaviour as also regarding demand of dowry in cash or kind have been denied. Rather, it is stated that the house in which the appellant used to reside was purchased with the money of the respondent by mortgaging the land belonging to him at village Nurpur. The appellant is stated to be a clever lady and she purchased the house in her own name and the name of the respondent was not included as the respondent is a very simple and honest person, and was not having any ill-will in his mind against the appellant. Besides, it is stated that the parties have two sons aged 16 years and 14 years respectively and as such how could he demand dowry. It is also denied by the r