JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant (husband) against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Original Case No. 13 of 2014 Naresh Kumar Saini vs. Smt. Sheetal Saini, by which learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar declined to grant the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary to notice for deciding the appeal, are that admittedly, the appellant got married to the respondent on 09.02.2006. Out of this wedlock, one daughter was born on 11.10.2007. She is living with the respondent. Both, the appellant and the respondent, are living separately since 02.01.2014. The appellant is a Junior Engineer in the Provincial Works Department of Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.

3. The appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955") on the ground of "cruelty".

4. The appellant, in his petition, pleaded the following circumstances, which, according to him, constitute "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955 entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the respondent-

(I) The first ground of cruelty was related to his wife's behavior. The respondent did not like him since their marriage. She did not want to live with him. At the time of marriage, their relatives persuaded her to go with him.

(II) The second ground of cruelty was that she never paid any respect to him and his parents.

(III) The third ground of cruelty was that in the year 2007, he spent Rs. one lac in getting her admission for the B.Ed. course and at the time of her delivery he admitted her to a reputed Nursing Home. Even then, her behavior was not good towards him.

(IV) The fourth ground of cruelty was that she had started insulting him publicly and her behavior was ruthless towards him.

(V) The fifth ground of cruelty was that when he complained to her father regarding her behavior, her father and one Surendra Saini abused him in Kotdwar in front of her, but, she did not oppose it. She herself used to threaten him.

(VI) The sixth ground of cruelty was that she did not even allow her daughter to meet her grand- father and grand-mother. She did not allow her to stay with him nor to attend the family events.

(VII) The seventh ground of cruelty was that since the end of the year 2012, she used to live in his government residence, but lived in a separate room.

(VIII) The eighth ground of cruelty was that she stopped cooking for him and threatened him to add poison to the food when he tried to convince her. Due to this, his life was in danger and he was forced to take food in the hotel continuously.

(IX) The ninth ground of cruelty was that she denied marital relations with him without any reason.

(X) The tenth ground of cruelty was that in February, 2013, her health deteriorated. By facing all kinds of problems, her treatment was conducted by him in Roorkee and Haridwar. He again brought her to Roorkee for her treatment on 04.04.2013. She then refused to go to Kotdwar with him. She had gone to her parental house with her brother and she came back with great difficulty after one month.

(XI) The eleventh ground of cruelty was that she filed a false case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(XII) The twelfth ground of cruelty was that during the counselling proceedings in the office of the Circle Officer of Police, Kotdwar, on 01.01.2014, she insulted him and threatened to implicate him in a false case.

(XIII) The thirteenth ground of cruelty was that on 02.01.2014, she locked up his government residence and without informing him and in his absence she went away with the daughter, and when he asked her on mobile phone, she told him that she was in her parental house.

5. In the circumstances, the appellant stated that it has become impossible for hi