S. B. SAKRIKAR, J. ( 1 ) -THE appellant/defendant has directed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the decree of divorce dated 2. 3. 1995 rendered by Additional District Judge, Indore in Hindu marriage Case No. 4/93, thereby granting decree of divorce against the appellant and in favour of respondent. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated that the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 17. 2. 1991. The respondent in his petition has stated that after marriage from 18. 3. 1992 onwards behaviour of the appellant-wife was cruel with the respondent/applicant and on the ground of cruelty, the respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage after notice to the appellant. The application filed by the respondent/husband was resisted by the appellant. The trial court, after framing issues and' recording the evidence allowed the application of the respondent and granted decree for dissolution of marriage against the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal against the impungned decree of divorce passed by the trial court. ( 3 ) THE counsel for the appellant contended that the acts of cruelty required for passing a decree for divorce are not proved beyond doubt from the evidence of respondent. As such decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. The counsel also submitted that even any act of cruelty is atributed to the appellant then from the subsequent acts and behaviour of the respondent it appears that such instance of cruelty have been condoned by the respondent, and therefore, no decree could be passed for annulment of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane. ( 4 ) AS against this, the counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that acts of cruelty proved against the appellant are sufficient for passing a decree for divorce. The counsel alos submitted that if it is not apparent from the evidence on record that acts of cruelty proved against the appellant have been condoned by the respondent at any stage during continuance of marriage. The counsel alos submitted that if it is not apparent from the evidence on record that acts of cruelty proved against the appellant have been condoned by the respondent at any stage during continuance of marriage. ( 5 ) 1 have considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record as also evidence of the parties. ( 6 ) ON perusal of the evidence of the appellant and copies of the report Exhs. P/3, P/6 and P/10, lodged against the respondent/ husband by the appellant, definitely constitute the act of cruelty, mainly sufficiently to pass a decree for divorce. From the evidence of the appellant it is proved beyond doubt that after marriage from 15. 3. 1992, the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent on petty matters and thereafter lived with her parents and lodged number of reports against the respondent on false allegations with the intention to involve him in some criminal cases of serious nature. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court on the point of cruelty, I do not find that the trial court has committed any error. The findings of the trial court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. I do not consider it necessary to discuss the matter again as I agree with the finding of the trial court. The apex Court in case of Girijanandini v. Bijendra Narain, has held as under :"it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court. Expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the court decision of which is under, appeal would ordinarily suffice. " ( 8 ) IN view of the facts and evidence available on record, I do not find that the trial court has committed any error in passing a decree for divorce on the ground of act of cruelty proved against the appellant. ( 9 ) COMING to the second contention submitted on behalf of the appellant that from the subsequent acts and behaviour of the respondent/husband it is apparent that any act of cruelty is attributed to the appellant then such acts have been condoned by the respondent. ( 9 ) COMING to the second contention submitted on behalf of the appellant that from the subsequent acts and behaviour of the respondent/husband it is apparent that any act of cruelty is attributed to the appellant then such acts have been condoned by the respondent. In this respect, the counsel invited my attention to the statement of the appellant Roopa (DW 3)and submitted that during continuance of the marriage, respondent used to take her to his relations and live there as husband and wife on so many occasions. This indicates that husband has impliedly condoned the act of cruelty alleged to have been committed by the appellant under the stress of anger. The trial court has considered the statement of the appellant on the aforesaid point and disbelieved the statement on the alleged fact of condonation. The trial court disbelieved the statement of the apellant mainly on the ground that it is not corroborated by the evidence of such person at whose residence the appellant and the respondent lived together at different times as husband and wife. It is no doubt true that even though the condonation is not pleaded as a defence by the respondent, it is the duty of the court to examine the evidence of the parties and find whether the cruelty was condoned by the opposite party. In case of Dr N. G. Dastane, (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the same principle and held as under: "even though condonation is not pleaded as a defence by the respondent it is court's duty in view of the provisions of Section 23 (l) (b) to find whether the cruelty was condoned by the appellant. That section casts an obligation on the court to consider the question of condonation, an obligation which has to be discharged even in undefended cases. The relief prayed for can be decreed only if the court is satisfied 'but not otherwise', that the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the creulty. It is, of course, necessary that there should be evidence on the record of the case to show that the appellant had condoned the cruelty. The relief prayed for can be decreed only if the court is satisfied 'but not otherwise', that the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the creulty. It is, of course, necessary that there should be evidence on the record of the case to show that the appellant had condoned the cruelty. " ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the case on hand and in view of the aforesaid decision of the'apex court as also considering the evidence available on record, 1 do not find that at any time during continuance of the marriage, the respondent/husband behaved with the appellant in such a way indicating that the respondent has condoned the acts of cruelty proved against the appellant There appears no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the trial court in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. ( 11 ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The decree passed by the trial court is upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. ( 12 ) COUNSEL's fee is fixed at Rs. 500/-either side, if certified. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Appeal dismissed. .