JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. Respondent-husband filed petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Bhopal by his judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 28-A/91 allowed the petition and the marriage between the parties held on 20.9.1994, was dissolved by adecreeofdivorce.Wife-appellant/aggrievedbythesamehaspreferredthisappea l u/Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties took place according to the Hindu rites on 12.6.1987 and they were blessed with a son. According to the husband, the wife lastly resided with him at Vidisha upto 2.3.1989. Wife is in a Government Service and has been posted as Hostel Warden at Mandav in the district of Dhar. According to the husband, the behaviour of the wife after the marriage was not good with him and also his family members. Her inclination was towards her parental side and she always use to make attempt that the husband leaves his parents and get himself transferred to Dhar or any other place failing which she threatened that she will not allow the husband to live peacefully. According to the husband/ he being the only son of his parents, is not in a position to leave them. It is the stand of the husband that the wife's behaviour with him as also his family members is cruel, she creates tension in the family for small things. She refused to touch feet of elders to pay respect and her behaviour was not proper with the guests also. According to the husband on account of the behaviour of the wife, he and his family members lived in sadness and were subjected to humiliation by other relation. According to the husband, wife earlier took admission in B.Ed. Course at Dewas and after great pursuation she got herself transferred to Bhopal. She used to go Bhopal daily for attending the class from Vidisha prior to 22.9.1987 According to the husband on 22.9.1987, without taking any permission from him, she hired a house at Bhopal but in order to provide safety to her, his parents asked him to stay at Bhopal. According to the husband her behaviour at Bhopal was also cruel and she used to pressurise him for not going to Vidisha and used to threaten to commit suicide. According to the husband her behaviour at Bhopal was also cruel and she used to pressurise him for not going to Vidisha and used to threaten to commit suicide. It is the allegation of me husband that after his wife conceived, she attempted for abortion which caused mental cruelty to him. On 22.5.1988 after the examination of B.Ed. was over according to the husband, he requested his wife to go to Vidisha but she did not agree and threatened to commit suicide. At this, the husband took her to Dhar and left her there, where she gave birth to a male child on 19.7.1988. Thereafter, she came to Vidisha and forced the husband to live at Bhopal. Dispute between the couple remained on account of bad health of the child. It is the allegation of the husband that he was assaulted by the wife in presence of witness Dilip Pandit and made false allegation of demand of dowry. It is the allegation of the husband that in order to harass him she got search warrant issued by the Court and lodged false case against him and his family members. On the basis of the aforesaid assertion, husband prayed for dissolution of marriage. 3. Wife in the written statement denied all the allegations made by the husband. It is her stand that it was her husband and his family members who used to behave with her in a cruel manner. According to the wife, she had cordial relationship with her husband but husband's parents created unpleasantness amongst them and she has never behaved in cruel manner either with her husband or his family members. She has denied the allegation of the husband that she ever attempted for abortion. According to the wife, me petition has been filed for dissolution of the marriage on account of less amount of dowry being paid to the husband and family members. It is the specific plea of the wife mat she had the habit of maintaining diary before the marriage and she used to maintain the same even after the marriage which was not liked by her sister-in-laws as they were not prepared to accept the truth written in it. She denied the allegation of the husband that she ever threatened to commit suicide. 4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties. She denied the allegation of the husband that she ever threatened to commit suicide. 4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties. Trial Court framed various issues and held that the wife subjected the husband with cruelty and further negatived the contention of the wife that the husband ever subjected her to cruelty. Accordingly the Trial Court allowed the petition. While holding so, the learned Judge negatived the contention of the wife that the child was not properly treated by the husband's family and they wanted to keep the child for the purpose of extracting dowry. It also negatived the case of the wife that the husband or his family members demanded dowry. Trial Court found that the wife fought with the husband in front of his friend and pulled his hair, thereafter went to Dhar and got search warrant issued, lodged case for demand of dowry against the husband and the family members. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the cumulative effect of these factors are that relationship between the parties is so tense that their living together is not possible which comes within the category of cruelty and accordingly allowed the petition. 5. Shri Pancholi, appearing for the wife submits that the solitary incident found proved by the learned Judge that the wife pulled hair of her husband in presence of his friend, does not amount to cruelty. Prakash Vyas, husband (PW 1) in paragraph 13 has stated that on 24th December, 1988 the child was unwell but his wife was ready to go to Dhar which was objected to by the husband, but she did not agree. According to this witness, he called his neighbour Pandit and when he started writing leave application, wife pulled his hair and scolded aforesaid Pandit as to why he interferes in his domestic affairs. Dilip Pandit has been examined as PW 2, who has stated that when he was called by the husband, husband and wife were talking loudly. According to this witness, wife was insisting to go to Dhar which was being objected to by the husband and the husband stated that he would take leave as the child is sick. According to this witness the moment the husband started writing the leave application, wife pounced on her and pulled his hair. 6. According to this witness, wife was insisting to go to Dhar which was being objected to by the husband and the husband stated that he would take leave as the child is sick. According to this witness the moment the husband started writing the leave application, wife pounced on her and pulled his hair. 6. The aforesaid act according to the learned Judge comes within the category of cruelty and in support of the aforesaid view he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh v. Amarjeet Kaur, AIR 1986 MP 41 , Usha v. Vimal Kumar, 1987 (1) DMC 164, and a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Lalloo v. Bechi, AlR 1986 Raj. 49. In the present case, the alleged incident has taken place in presence of the witnesses in the home of the parties; The incident, according to the husband has also not taken place in the public place. It is not the allegation of the husband that wife used to assault him regularly. It cannot be said that in no circumstance solitary incident of assault can be termed as cruelty. No hard and fast rule, in my opinion can be laid to specify the number of abuses and assaults which would come within the expression cruelty. It will depend upon the social background, the place, the manner and the number of persons present at that particular point of time. In the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), and Usha (supra), it was found that the wife used to assault the husband and solitary incident was not taken to be cruelty for the purpose of dissolving the marriage. In the case of Lalloo (supra), solitary incident of abuse was held to be cruelty. However, in the said case the incident has taken place at the bus stand. Here in the present case, the incident has taken place within the four walls of the house in presence of one witness, who is none other than another employee working with the husband. As such, the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. In the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the solitary incident of the wife pulling the hair of the husband will not amount to cruelty. 7. As such, the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. In the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the solitary incident of the wife pulling the hair of the husband will not amount to cruelty. 7. It is relevant here to state that the Trial Court has dissolved the marriage on the ground of aforesaid cruelty on the part of the wife, but Shri Gohil, appearing on behalf of the husband has tried to support the decree on other grounds also. He has referred to the conduct and purported act of the wife, which has occurred prior to leaving the matrimonial home. It is the husband's own case that after the birth of the child on 19.6.1988 he went to bring his wife to the matrimonial home in September, 1988 and she came to Vidisha. However, according to the husband she started pressurising him to leave his parents ancestral house and stay with her at Bhopal. Therefore, according to the husband's own case he alongwith his wife went to Bhopal and stayed there from 13.11.1988. Therefore, the purported act of cruelty prior to the aforesaid date has been condoned by the husband himself and he cannot take shelter behind these conducts. While staying at Bhopal, according to the husband on 15.12.1988 their son got sick and was to be hospitalised but the wife under that state, wanted to go to Dhar. It is the husband's stand that after great counselling and on me ground that the child may die, she cancelled her programme but there being no co-operation and assistance from anybody at Bhopal, couple went to Vidisha on 15.12.1988 and remained there till 1.3.1989. This clearly shows that the husband in order to carry on the matrimonial relation condoned the purported past act of the wife and lived at Vidisha. Accordingly the husband cannot seek dissolution of the marriage on the ground which were available, if at all, to the husband before the said date. 8. According to the husband, during her last stay at Vidisha/ her behaviour was indisciplined and crude towards him and his family members. According to the husband during this period wife used to say that she will not stay at Vidisha but stay at Dhar and on being counselled she used to misbehave. 8. According to the husband, during her last stay at Vidisha/ her behaviour was indisciplined and crude towards him and his family members. According to the husband during this period wife used to say that she will not stay at Vidisha but stay at Dhar and on being counselled she used to misbehave. According to the husband's own case he took her to Dhar once but because of the love and affection for the child and on counselling she again came to Vidisha. According to the husband 'Mundan Sanskar' of the child was fixed on 6.3.1989 but before that she sent message in pursuance whereof her brother came and she left Vidisha for Dhar on 2.3.1989 alongwith her clothes and jewellary. Thereafter, according to the husband, a search warrant was got issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate u /Sec. 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which false allegation, against him, his sister and his parents were made. In pursuance of the search warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the child was delivered to the wife. According to the husband, leaving the matrimonial home on 2.3.1989, getting search warrant issued on false and concocted allegations has resulted into extreme tension and they cannot live together. Wife has denied the allegation of the husband that she left the matrimonial home on 2.3.1989. It is her case that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home by the husband and his family members and me child was retained. Accordingly, she had no option than to get the custody of child by issuance of search warrant. She has further denied the allegation that any false criminal case was instituted by her. It is relevant here to state that at that particular point of time age of the child was less than 2 years. 9. As regards the allegation of the husband that the wife left me matrimonial home after leaving the child and procurement of the child by search warrant tantamounts to cruelty, I am not prepared to believe this statement. According to the evidence of the parties at the time when the wife left the child he was aged about 8 months. In case the wife has left the child on her own volition there was no action for her to get the search warrant issued. According to the evidence of the parties at the time when the wife left the child he was aged about 8 months. In case the wife has left the child on her own volition there was no action for her to get the search warrant issued. It is premature to say about me truthfulness or otherwise on the allegation of the wife about demand of dowry. Therefore, I am of me opinion that the decree for dissolution of marriage cannot be granted on this ground. 10. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that to support his contention that making false allegation and charges against the husband by the wife amount to cruelty, Mr. Gohil has placed reliance on large number of judgments. In the case of Saroj v. Dashrath, 1987 M.P.W.N. 255, wherein this Court held as under: "In such a situation, one cannot escape concluding that the husband must have suffered lot of humiliations followed by mental agony, amounting to cruelty. The decree for divorce is, therefore, confirmed." In the case of Ashok Kumar v. Smt. Vijay Lakxmi, AIR 1992 Delhi 132, it has been held that false allegation results in mental agony of the grievous character which would in turn amount to cruelty. Another decision on which Mr. Gohil has placed reliance is the judgment of the Bombay High .Court in the case of J.M. Otavnekar v. M.G. Otavnekar, AIR 1987 Bombay 220, where in it has been held that unauthorised and unfounded allegation of adultery in the written statement itself amounts to cruelty. Further Mr. Gohil has placed reliance on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Parimi Mehar Seshu v. Parimi Nageswara Sastry, AIR 1994 AP 92 , wherein it has been stated that the absence of reason for wife to live away from husband and not showing any affection by the wife towards husband amounts to cruelty. Lastly, Mr. Gohil has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Santana Banerjee v. Sachindra Nath Banerjee, AIR 1990 Calcutta 367, wherein making disparaging, derogatory and ugly remarks against husband and his close relative about their character was held to be cruelty. 11. None of the authorities relied on by the learned Counsel is of any assistance to him. 11. None of the authorities relied on by the learned Counsel is of any assistance to him. Here in the present case, on facts I found that the husband has not been able to prove its case of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, the authorities relied on are dearly distinguishable. As held earlier, the decree for dissolution of marriage having been founded on the ground which is not sustainable, I allow the appeal set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and dismiss the husband's petition. No cost.