A divorce decree can only be granted based on the grounds specified in the Hindu Marriage Act, and a party cannot take advantage of their own wrong to obtain a divorce.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 31. 1. 1998 in Civil Suit No. 34-A/96, by District judge Satna, allowing the respondent/ husband's petition for dissolution of marriage and divorce.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTABLY, the parties were married about 15 years prior to the filing of the divorce petition by the husband/respondent. Two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. The parties are now not residing together and the appellant/wife at present is living at village Pindra with her father along with her daughters. On the report of the appellant/wife a criminal case for an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, was registered by Police Station Uchehra and charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent/husband and others; in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod.

( 3 ) THE respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short), praying for a decree ef dissolution of marriage and divorce alleging that the father and brother of appellant/wife used to pressurise the respondent/husband to secure his share in the family property after getting it partitioned and shift to Village Pindra, where father and brother of the appellant/wife reside. However, the respondent/husband was not inclined to accede to their demand as above. Hence, the appellant/wife along with her daughters left the matrimonial home in december 1991 and started residing, with her father at village Pindra against the wishes of the respondent/husband. The respondent/ husband further averred that despite his efforts to bring back the appellant/wife with him, she did not come back and has thus deserted the respondent/husband for the last five years. It was also averred by the respondent/husband that the appellant/wife lodged a false report against him on 22. 5. 1995 at Police Station uchehra, on account of which the respondent/husband, his father and uncle were arrested by the Police on 25. 5. 1995. The respondent/ husband averred that the appellant/wife is not performing her matrimonial obligations and has thus been treating him with cruelty. Therefore, the respondent/husband prayed for dissolution of marriage and decree of divorce.

( 4 ) THE appellant/wife denied the allegations as above. According to her, the respondent/husband and his parents on account of her dark complexion used to taunt her and called her "kaluti". They used to misbehave with her and torture her. They also used to demand gold ornaments. Since the father of the appellant/wife had no means to fulfil their demand, the respondent and his parents used to maltreat and beat the appellant/wife. The appellant further averred that on account of maltreatment as above, she was left with no option but to leave her matrimonial home, and to go with her father in December 1994. It was further averred by the appellant/wife that the respondent/husband on 19. 5. 1995 had remarried Guddi daughter of Biharilal, resident of Village Kalpa. On learning about the second marriage of the respondent/husband the appellant/wife went to her matrimonial home; where her husband-the respondent and his family members, maltreated and manhandled the appellant/wife and forced her to go back with her father. The appellant/wife thereupon lodged the report of the incident at Police Station uchehra. She prayed that divorce petition being founded on false grounds, be dismissed.

( 5 ) IT was held by the learned trial Court that the appellant/wife had not deserted the respondent/husband and that the appellant/ wife was manhandled and forced to go away from her matrimonial home by the respondent and his family members on 22. 5. 1995. The learned trial Court also held that the respondent/husband had married Guddi; from whom the respondent had also begotten a son. It was further held that the report lodged by the appellant/wife against the respondent/ husband was not false. Accordingly, t