JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant wife has filed this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment and decree dated March 28, 1987, passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner, whereby the petition filed by her against respondent-husband for dissolution of the marriage between the parties was dismissed. 2. The parties were married according to Hindu Marriage rites 4 May 13, 1981. They lived as husband and wife firstly at the no use of the respondent and thereafter for a period of about three and a half months at the house of the appellant's father. No child of the wedlock was born. 3. In the petition, the appellant-wife had alleged that soon after the marriage, the respondent started treating her with physical as well as mental cruelty. The instances of physical cruelty alleged in the petition were that the respondent used to come drunk and used to beat the appellant by sitting over her body and that this continued for long. The instance of mental cruelty alleged in the plaint was that on enquiry by the appellant as to why the respondent used to treat her with cruelty, the respondent used to level charges of adultery against her saying that she was having illicit relations with her father, brother and residents of her Mohalla. The appellant-wife, prayed that the marriage between her and the respondent be dissolved, by passing a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. She had pleaded that she had not condoned the cruelty and that there was no delay in presenting the petition. 4. The petition was contested by the respondent, who denied the allegations of physical as well as mental 'cruelty. He denied that he ever came drunk or gave beatings to the appellant-wife or that he had levelled any charges of adultry against her. He also pleaded that there was delay in filing the petition. 5. 4. The petition was contested by the respondent, who denied the allegations of physical as well as mental 'cruelty. He denied that he ever came drunk or gave beatings to the appellant-wife or that he had levelled any charges of adultry against her. He also pleaded that there was delay in filing the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues : 1- D;k izkFkhZuh dks'kY;k ds lkFk vikFkhZ Qqlk jke us ekjihV djds dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k\ 2- D;k izkFkhZuh dks'kY;k ds fo:) vikZFkh Qqlk jke us pfj=hd ykaNu yxkdj ekufld dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k\ 3- D;k ckn i= nsjh ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 4- lgk;rk\ In support of her case, the appellant examined her father Ratan Lal, besides appearing as her own witness. Respondent appeared as his own witness and examined his father Asa Ram in rebuttal. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial court found issues Mos. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the appellant but in view of findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 6. I have heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi, Advocate, for the appellant, Mr. Mridul Jain, Advocate, for the respondent and have also perused the record of the case. 7. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant, does not challenge the finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 1 but has contended that the learned trial court erred in deciding issue No. 2 in favour of the respondent, specially when the statement of the appellant that the respondent used to level charges of adultry against her and used to tell her that she was having illicit relations with her father, brother and Mohallawalas, remained unchallenged in cross-examination and no evidence was produced in rebuttal. 8. I have gone through the statements of the parties with the help of the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The appellant, while appearing as P.W. 1, has stated on oath that on her asking as to why he used to ill-treat her, the respondent used to say that he did not like her and also that she was having illicit relations with her father, brother and Mohallawalas. 9. The appellant, while appearing as P.W. 1, has stated on oath that on her asking as to why he used to ill-treat her, the respondent used to say that he did not like her and also that she was having illicit relations with her father, brother and Mohallawalas. This statement was not challenged in the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the respondent. The respondent did not even say a word denying this fact in his statement on oath, made by him appearing as N.W. 1. Since this part of the statement of the appellant remained unchallenged and unrebutted, in my view, the learned trial court erred in holding that the appellant had failed to rove that the respondent had been levelling charges of adultry against her. 10. It is not disputed that false charges of adultry amounts to mental cruelty to the wife. The learned trial court, therefore, wrongly decided issue No. 2 in favour of the respondents. In these circumstances, I hold that the respondent had been levelling false charges of adultry against the appellant and had treated her with mental cruelty. 11. Consequently, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty, by passing a decree of divorce under Clause (i)(a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.There will be no order as to costs.Appeal accepted. *******