JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the wife, challenging the judgment and decree dated 6th May, 2000, passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Jaipur, by which a decree for divorce was passed in favour of the husband and against the wife. 2. The respondent Kamal Kishor and appellant-wife Smt. Satya Devi were married on February 24, 1985, at Jaipur according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The respondent filed an application on July 23, 1997, in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short he 'Act f 1955') on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is alleged that from the very first night after marriage, the appellant wife refused to share bed with him and said that this marriage was solemnized against her wishes and she would not live with him and only after eight days of marriage she left the applicant husband to join her parents. The respondent-husband went to her but she declined to accompany him. The appellant wife thereafter filed an application for maintenance at Shikohabad Court in the year 1986 and got an ex parte order for maintenance of Rs. 400/- p.m. vide order dated May 4, 1987. Even thereafter the respondent husband tried again and again to persuade her and after much persuasion by the elders of the society, she came to stay with her husband on June 3, 1991, but she continued her misbehaviour with the respondent husband and members of his family as well. While giving the details of misbehaviour, by appellant wife with the respondent and his family members, it is stated that she left the house of respondent husband on 8.11.1993 and stayed with her brother-in-law (sister's husband). Suddenly she came back on September 7, 1994, and unlocked the room and poured kerosene upon herself and started shouting 'bachao- bachao'. The Police was called. The Police came to the spot and found it is false case after investigation. Suddenly she came back on September 7, 1994, and unlocked the room and poured kerosene upon herself and started shouting 'bachao- bachao'. The Police was called. The Police came to the spot and found it is false case after investigation. She also filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 28.6.1995, against the respondent husband, his mother, elder brother Leela Dhar and Smt. Harjeet Kaur, wife of Shri Leela Dhar, regarding the alleged incident dated September 7, 1994, under Sections 307, 323, 341, 498A read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and thus these actions of appellant wife amount to cruelty. 3. It is further stated that the appellant wife has deserted the respondent-husband since November 1993, i.e. for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the present application. It is also stated that now it is almost impossible to live with her. Therefore, a decree of divorce may be passed in favour of the respondent husband against the appellant-wife. 4. The appellant wife contested the petition and refuted the allegations made against her. According to her, she never objected to share the bed with her husband and never misbehaved with her husband or her in-laws. It is also denied that she left her husband's house at her own. She had to stay with her parents as her husband never came to take her back. While admitting this fact, that at the intervention by elders of the society, she went to her husband's house, she pleaded that she was expelled by her husband after two months. It is alleged that she was harassed for dowry and under the pressure of his family members, the respondent husband filed an application for divorce on March 27, 1990, which was dismissed in default on 4.7 1991 and thereafter this second application for divorce has been filed on false grounds. It is also pleaded that the facts relating to incident dated 7.9.1994, are correct. 5. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of respondent husband. 6. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings framed following issues:- (1) Whether wife Smt. Satya Devi, has after solemnization of the marriage, treated her husband with cruelty ? It is also pleaded that the facts relating to incident dated 7.9.1994, are correct. 5. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of respondent husband. 6. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings framed following issues:- (1) Whether wife Smt. Satya Devi, has after solemnization of the marriage, treated her husband with cruelty ? (2) Whether wife Smt. Satya Devi has deserted her husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the application ? (3) Whether the applicant husband is entitled to decree of divorce ? (4) Relief. 7. The applicant-husband besides himself examined Mod Lal, a neighbour, Mohan Kumar, his sister-in-law Smt. Harjeet Kaur and Ajay Kumar Arora. The wife Smt. Satya Devi examined herself and her elder sister Smt. Santosh Devi. 8. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence available on record, decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant-husband and consequently passed a decree of divorce in favour of the applicant husband vide judgment dated May 6, 2000, and also awarded Rs. 800/- p.m. as maintenance from the date of judgment to the appellant-wife. Hence this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the trial court has passed the judgment and decree of divorce on the ground that the relationship between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has totally broken and, there seems to be no chance of retrieval at all. As per counsel for the appellant no decree of divorce could have been passed on this basis in view of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi, reported in 2001 IV AD (S.C.) 123 = (2001) 4 SCC 250 . But this argument is not acceptable on two grounds. First, the trial court has not passed the decree of divorce only on the ground that marriage between the parties has completely broken and secondly the Hon. Supreme Court in Chetan Dass's case (supra) has held that break-down theory of marriage can not be made applicable as a straight jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the back-ground of the other facts and circumstances of the case. This aspect has to be considered in the back-ground of the other facts and circumstances of the case. In the case before Hon. Supreme Court, the allegation of adulterous conduct of the appellant-husband was found to be proved by-the trial Court as well as by the High Court and in this back-ground, Hon. Supreme Court has declined to apply the break-down theory of marriage for grant of divorce to the applicant-husband. But in the present case, the trial Court after considering all the evidence including the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the appellant-wife has treated her husband with cruelty and she also deserted him as provided under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the Act of 1955. 10. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the trial court on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are not in consonance with the evidence available on the record, and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court on both the issues are liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings of the trial Court on both he issues. 11. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the entire evidence on record it appears that the trial Court has rightly decided both the issues in favour of the respondent-husband. 12. It has been roved by evidence of the respondent-husband Kama] Kishor that soon after the marriage, his wife Smt. Satya Devi left her matrimonial home and refused to come back with him. The statement of Shri Kama] Kishore in this regard finds support from the statements of Motilal, Mohan Kumar, Smt. Harjeet Kaur and Ajay Kumar Arora. Smt. Satya Devi herself has admitted in her statement that after one month of her marriage, she accompanied her brother and stayed with her parents for about 6-7 years, as her husband did not come to take her back. But this was not a proper ground for Smt. Satya Devi not to return at her matrimonial home. She came to her husband's house in June 1991 and that too at the intervention of elders of their society. But this was not a proper ground for Smt. Satya Devi not to return at her matrimonial home. She came to her husband's house in June 1991 and that too at the intervention of elders of their society. She again left her matrimonial house in November 1993, and stayed with her sister and returned thereafter on 7.9.1994 and got an F.I.R. lodged with the police against her husband and his family members and thereafter she never resided with her husband. It is also not disputed that in the year 1986, i.e. about one year after her marriage, she filed an application for maintenance at Sikohabad, against her husband and got an ex parte maintenance order in her favour in the year 1987. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that in the year 1986, appellant was residing with her parents at Sikri and filed an application for maintenance at Sikohabad to harass her husband. It is also proved from evidence that appellant used to quarrel with her husband and her in-laws. It is not disputed that appellant lodged a report with the Police stating therein that when she came back to her matrimonial home on 7.9.1994, and was trying to unlock her room, at that time her in-laws i.e. elder brother of her husband, his wife and her mother-in-law came there and gave beatings to her and poured kerosene on her in order to burn her. But this report, after investigation, was found to be false. Thereafter she filed a complaint in the Court as stated above and that too was also dismissed after enquiry by the learned Magistrate. However, a challan under Section 498A Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondent-husband. All these facts taken together clearly prove that the appellant treated her husband with cruelty and deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the application for divorce by Kama] Kishor. 13. Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection. But keeping in view the above facts, which have been proved by evidence, the learned trial Judge has rightly decided both the issues in favour of respondent-husband.In the result, this appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******