The main legal point established in the judgment is that behavior amounting to mental cruelty, including lodging false complaints, can justify the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(A-1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Palo, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2008 pronounced by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in case No. 13A/2008 HMA, by which the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(A-1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant/husband has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

2. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent are the husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 28th November, 2005 by observing Hindu Customs.

3. The factual matrix before the Trial Court was that the appellant filed a petition for a decree of divorce on the ground that two months after their marriage, the respondent wife did not observe the marital obligation. She behaved roughly with the parents of the appellant. She also insisted him to live in separate house. Thinking that time would come when everything will be normal. The appellant started living with her in separate house. But her behavior did not change. She had been quarreling with the appellant for petty matters. She always tried to insult the appellant. She left her matrimonial home 15th months ago and started living at village Kotichaar Kala with her parents. Despite several attempts to bring her by the appellant and his parents did not bring any fruitful result.

4. Appellant sent a notice through his counsel on 3.5.2007 but the respondent wife neither replied nor she restored the conjugal rights. It has further been alleged that when she left the matrimonial house, the respondent took away the ornaments, which were given to her at the time of marriage.

5. Per contra, respondent wife in the Trial Court denied all the averments and submitted that the husband/appellant and his parents were kept her happily for two months, then their behavior changed. They demanded dowry and harassed her. Respondent also claimed that she lived with her parents of the appellant at Vidisha whereas the notice was sent to her parental house. On 12th August 2007 after the "Sravan ceremony" the appellant took her to her parental house and left there. with her parents. When parents of respondent were going to Amarnath Yatra in the month of July the appellant took the respondent to the railway station, and left her and returned alone. She somehow managed to go to Khiri Road, house of appellant at Vidisha.

6. The learned Trial Court framed issues and adduced evidence of both the parties. The learned Trial Court pronounced the impugned judgment and disallowed the application under Section 13(1)(A-1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

7. The appellant/husband aggrieved by the judgment has filed this appeal on several grounds. He claimed that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the legal aspect and the Trial Court believed the statement of respondent without considering the contradictions which goes into the root of the case. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

9. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The only question involved is whether the respondent has committed any cruelty with the appellant as pointed under Section (1) (1-a) of Act 1955. From the record, it is evident that the relationship with her in-laws was not good after the marriage. The appellant, therefore, lived with the respondent separately from his parents. If the statement of the respondent is taken as it is, then she has been living with her parents since the day on which of her parents were leaving for Amarnath Yatra. She also narrates that till August 2007 she lived with her husband at Shamshabaad. The reports lodged by her were lodged after the present suit was instituted. First report Ex. D/1 was lodged on 7.1.2008 and Ex.D/2 and D/3 were lodged on 19.12.2007. Firstly, the report for harassment and dowry were lodged after institution of the suit, which can be considered after thought. Seco