Honble PRASAD, J. – By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Nohar, dated 1.12.1992. (2). The basic arguments of the counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has proceeded to decree the application for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The alleged cruelty fell short of the standards which would be required to prove cruelty. However, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the husband had attained that kind of mental cruelty that he cannot now live with the wife, and therefore, this cruelty is sufficient to annul the marriage. (3). The arguments of the counsel for the appellant is that the cruelty was on the part of the husband and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. His allegations against the wife are of general nature and they does not constitute cruelty by itself. On the contrary, the un-proved allegation of adultery levelled by the husband against the appellant-wife is of a character that it can be safely inferred that the husband was on the wrong. (4). If the trial Courts finding is taken into consideration that the husband has failed to prove the mis-behaviour of the wife and he used to allege that she is living unchaste life. Obviously there could not have been any other cruel circumstance pressed into service against the wife, then the allegation of being unchaste. This was from the side of the husband. If then husband takes liberty of making false allegation of grave character, then, he cannot escape the liability of being procee- ded against by the wife to save her honour and dignity, may be that she failed in proving the charges of cruelty in a criminal Court, but that does not give the husband a liberty to say that by having instituted a criminal case, she had acted with such cruelty that it would constitute a ground to dissolve the marriage. In fact, it was the husband, who was on the erring side by making unfound allegations by saying that boys used to come from village Kanvani. In this back-ground re-action can normally be accepted from wife, and therefore, it cannot be said that the cruelty as presumed by the trial Court is the cruelty created by the wife. In fact, it was the husband, who was on the erring side by making unfound allegations by saying that boys used to come from village Kanvani. In this back-ground re-action can normally be accepted from wife, and therefore, it cannot be said that the cruelty as presumed by the trial Court is the cruelty created by the wife. It was a direct result of the doings of the husband himself, and therefore, the finding of cruelty arrived at by the trial Court is vitiated. (5). Hence, the appeal is allowed. The finding of the appellate Court on issue No. 1 is reversed, consequently, the finding on issue No. 2 is also reversed. (6). In the result, the divorce application is dismissed with no order as to costs.