(2). The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife. The appellant has filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. The Family Court after comprehensively dealing with the matter ordered cancellation of marriage between the parties under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was solemnized on 20.11.1975 and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5 lacs as her livelihood allowance. The appellant deposited the amount as directed.

(3). The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment preferred First Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. After hearing the parties the appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the Family Court, Kanpur City seeking divorce and annulment of the marriage was dismissed.

(4). The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court had preferred special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court granted special leave to appeal to the appellant.

(5). Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated.

(6). The appellant, Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu Kohli on 20.11.1975. Three sons were born out of the wedlock of the parties. The appellant constructed three factories with the intention of providing a separate factory for his three sons. He also constructed bungalow No. 7/36 A for their residence. The parties got all their three residence. The parties got all their three sons admitted and educated in a public school in Nanital. According to the appellant, the respondent is bad tempered and a woman of rude behaviour. After marriage, she stated quarreling and misbehaving with the appellant and his parents and ultimately, the appellant was compelled to leave the parental residence and started to reside in a rented premises from May 1994. According to the version of the appellant, the respondent in collusion with her parents got sufficient business and property transferred in her name.

(7). The appellant alleged that in the month of May 1994, when he along with the respondent and their children visited Bombay to attend the golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father-in- law, he noticed that the respondent was indulging in an indecent manner and found her in a compromising position with one Biswas Rout. Immediately thereafter, the appellant-started living separately from the respondent since May 1994. The appellant suffered intense physical and mental torture.

(8). According to the appellant, the respondent had withdrawn Rs. 9,50,000/- from the Bank Account of the appellant and deposited the same in her account.

(9). The appellant alleged that the respondent got a false first information report registered against him under Sections 420/467/468 and 471, IPC which was registered as Case No. 156 of 1995. According to him, the respondent again got a case under sections 323/324, IPC registered in the Police Station, Panki, Kanpur City and efforts were made to get the appellant arrested.

(10). The appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 1158/1996 against the respondents. It was also reported that the appellant was manhandled at the behest of the respondent and an FIR No. 156 of 1996 was filed by the eldest son at the behest of the respondent against the appellant in Police Station, Panki complaining that the appellant had physically beaten her son, Nitin Kohli.

(11). The respondent in her statement before the Trial Court had mentioned that she had filed an FIR against the appellant under Section 420/468 IPC at the Police Station. Kotwali and the respondent had gone to the extent of filing a caveat in the High Court in respect of the said criminal case so that the appellant may not obtain an order from the High Court against her filing the said FIR.

(12). In the same statement, the respondent had admitted that she had filed an FIR No. 100/96 at the