The judgment establishes that unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty and filing false criminal cases can amount to mental cruelty in a marriage, justifying a decree of divorce.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh. J. - The present appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which the petition filed by appellant-husband under Section 13(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'the HMA'), for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.05.1994, as per Hindu customs, rites and religious ceremonies, in village Phoosgarh, Tehsil and District Karnal, and out of this wedlock two children were born, who are presently living under the care and custody of the appellant-husband. The respondent-wife treated her husband and other members of his family with cruelty. She insisted her husband to shift to urban area. On this, the appellant-husband shifted to Karnal, where his father was having official accommodation in the local sugar mill. However, despite this, there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent-wife. She levelled false allegations against her father-in-law that she made attempt to outrage her modesty. Then, again both the husband and wife started living in his parental house situated in the village but respondent-wife refused to discharge her marital obligations. In March 2002, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home of her own while leaving behind her two minor children. All efforts made by the appellant-husband for her rehabilitation in the matrimonial home, failed. Hence, petition under Section 13 of the HMA was filed by the appellant-husband.

3. The divorce petition was challenged by the respondent-wife, in which the fact regarding marriage between the parties was admitted. The birth of two children out of their wedlock was also admitted. At the same time, it was pleaded that the appellant-husband raised demand of more dowry from her parents and also ill-treated her. On 03.05.2003, when both the parties were residing with her father-in-law in the colony of Sugar Mill, Karnal, her father-in-law tried to outrage her modesty but she managed to save herself. After the said incident, her husband used to beat her and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and Hero Handa Motorcycle from her parents. On this, her father gave Rs.85,000/-to her husband. However, her husband was not satisfied and he again raised demand of balance amount and motorcycle and he also tried to kill her by adding poison in her milk. Thereafter, her father took her to his house and provided medical aid to her. All the efforts made by her and other members of her family for reconciliation, failed. It was denied that she treated her husband and in-laws with cruelty. It was prayed that divorce petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. The appellant-husband filed replication, whereby he controverted the assertions made by the respondent-wife in her written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion? OPP

(2) Relief.

5. The appellant-husband himself appeared in the witness box as PWl and also examined his father-Ram Singh as PW3 and one Hari Singh as PW2.

6. On the other hand, respondent examined RW2-Yashpal Singh, RW3-Mahavir Singh, RW4-Mangat Ram and she herself appeared in the witness box as RW1.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dismissed the divorce petition.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submits that the respondent-wife used to treat her husband with cruelty. The various instances of the said cruelty were cited in the divorce petition. Even while appearing in the witnes