JUDGMENT 1. - This D.B. Civil Misc. appeal is directed by the appellant-husband, challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.7.1998, passed by Judge, Family Court, Jaipur. Learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application of the appellant-husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) for divorce. 2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows: The appellant-husband Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh was married to the non-applicant Dr. Sangeeta on May 5, 1992, at Udaipur, according to Hindu rites and rituals. On account of this wedlock, she gave birth to a son called Gopu on 24.6.1993. The case of the appellant-husband is that the non-applicant wife on several occasions threatened and attempted to commit suicide. She insisted on the appellant to live separately from his parents, though the appellant is the only son of his parents. Upon insistence of the wife, the appellant-husband started living separately but the non-applicant wife continued to misbehave with the appellant and his parents. She often used to leave the appellant-husband for Udaipur from time to time and details of her visit to Udaipur are given in the application. It is also stated that before the marriage, it was agreed between the parties that she will remain at Jaipur since the appellant-husband was the only male issue of his parents. Accordingly, the non-applicant wife joined service in Amar Jain Hospital at Jaipur on 12.5.1992 but soon after she left for Udaipur along with her father on 30.5.1992. She returned to Jaipur but again left for Udaipur on 27.7.1992 and stayed there upto 15.8.1992. She persisted time and again that the appellant-husband should settle at Udaipur. She had not taken any interest in the domestic work and also started quarrelling with the appellant and his parents. Her behaviour was abnormal at Jaipur. It is also stated that the non-applicant wife and her father misbehaved with the parents of the appellant by making baseless allegations regarding demand of dowry. It is also stated that on 22.9.1992, the non-applicant had a month's pregnancy but she wanted abortion, which was not acceptable to the appellant. Thereupon, she took out mercury after breaking B.P. instrument and swallowed mercury to commit suicide, but she was saved. It is also stated that on 22.9.1992, the non-applicant had a month's pregnancy but she wanted abortion, which was not acceptable to the appellant. Thereupon, she took out mercury after breaking B.P. instrument and swallowed mercury to commit suicide, but she was saved. Thereafter, she left for Udaipur on 24.6.1993 and came back to Jaipur on 5.3.1994 after much persuasion and stayed at Jaipur only upto 17.7.1994 and thereafter, she did not return to Jaipur from Udaipur. It is also stated that on 4.7.1994, she took four tablets of 'William' after showing the same to the appellant-husband and it caused great mental shock to the appellant. She again consumed four tablets of 'Brufain' of 400 mg. each at 9 p.m. She also brought a book named 'how to suicide' on 11.7.1994 and told appellant that she will commit suicide. Thereafter she left for Udaipur on 17.7.1994 and has not come back till day, though the appellant has tried his best of persuade her to come to Jaipur and live with him and thus she has committed a series of acts amounting to cruelty. Thus the appellant-husband prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty vide application dated 26.10.1995. 3. The non-applicant wife submitted her detailed reply on 29.1.1996, denying all the allegations of cruelty. It is pleaded that it is the applicant-husband, his parents and sister Kusum, who committed various acts of cruelty to her. As a matter of fact, the applicant wants to re-marry and they compelled her to leave her in-laws' house, therefore, she came to Udaipur and joined service as a Medical Officer at Udaipur and presently she is working as Medical Officer in Govt. Hospital at Khairada, district Udaipur and she is ready and willing to live with her husband at Khairada. 4. Following issues were framed on 7.10.1996: 1. Whether respondent-wife treated the appellant-husband with cruelly after solemnization of marriage? 2. Whether appellant is entitled to decree of divorce against respondent. 3. Relief? 5. Thereafter, the appellant-husband examined himself, his father PW 2 Moti Singh and sister Pw 3 Dr. Suman Jain. On the other hand the non-applicant Dr. Sangeeta has examined herself. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge has observed that at the time of marriage, non-applicant Dr. 2. Whether appellant is entitled to decree of divorce against respondent. 3. Relief? 5. Thereafter, the appellant-husband examined himself, his father PW 2 Moti Singh and sister Pw 3 Dr. Suman Jain. On the other hand the non-applicant Dr. Sangeeta has examined herself. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge has observed that at the time of marriage, non-applicant Dr. Sangeeta was M.B.B.S. and at that time the applicant-husband had informed her that he has already applied for service in Udaipur University; that she did not make any attempt to commit suicide and the facts regarding suicide are imaginary, that she never desired to abort, that the applicant husband and his parents are interested only in divorce and they want to get rid of her and thus the issue of cruelty has not been proved at all. Consequently the application was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.1998. Hence this appeal. 6. Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act, 1955 provides that any marriage solemnized, may be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has after the solemnization of a marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty. 7. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellant has urged that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in a proper way. Mr. Mehta has referred the evidence available on the record and particularly put much emphasis on para 30 and 37 of the reply submitted by wife Smt. Sangeeta, wherein, it was stated that she is a doctor at Government hospital, Khairada. She has been allotted a house and she is willing to live with her husband at Khairada. As per Mr. Mehta, it is evident from this reply that she is not ready to live with her husband at Jaipur and it constitutes a cruelty to the appellant-husband. He has also referred the evidence of the appellant regarding other facts which constitute cruelty according to the appellant-husband. Reliance has been placed on some of the judgments. Hon. Madras High Court in A.P. Ranga Rao v. Vijaylakshmi 1 (1990) DMC 567 has held that several attempts by wife to commit suicide, amount to mental cruelty to her husband. He has also referred the evidence of the appellant regarding other facts which constitute cruelty according to the appellant-husband. Reliance has been placed on some of the judgments. Hon. Madras High Court in A.P. Ranga Rao v. Vijaylakshmi 1 (1990) DMC 567 has held that several attempts by wife to commit suicide, amount to mental cruelty to her husband. Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdip Kaur v. Balbir Singh 1 (1991) DMC 571, has held that the wife consistently threatening to commit suicide and to entangle her husband and his relations for the same amounts to cruelty and creation of such circumstances when it was impossible for the husband to live with her without endangering his health or life. Similar view has been taken by Hon. M.P. High Court in Indu Bai v. Koutik 1 (1982) DMC 93, that the threat by the wife to commit suicide amounts to mental cruelty upon the husband. Hon. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pushpa Bai v. Kamal Kumar Jain, 1 (1986) DMC 383, also held that the allegations show the wife's hostile conduct and such hostile conduct from the wife can hardly be expected of a faithful and gentle wife and no husband could tolerate such reckless and unresponsible conduct on the part of his wife. Hon. Orissa High Court has held in Mrs. Gayatri Mishra v. Pramod Kumar Nanda, 1 (2000) DMC 102, that wife voluntarily deprived her husband of her society and cohabitation for years and it amounts to mental cruelty. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Mrs. Namita Parihar contends that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and all the allegations of the cruelty were without any basis and the appellant-husband was and is under the influence of his parents and sister and application for divorce was also filed under their influence. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence on the record and are of the view there appears no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court on the question of cruelty. It is not disputed that at the time of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent, the respondent was MBBS qualified. It is not disputed that at the time of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent, the respondent was MBBS qualified. The appellant husband has not specifically pleaded in his application as to what type of job he was performing prior to or at the time of his marriage with the respondent. The appellant Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh has stated that prior to this marriage, it was agreed upon between the parties that she will not serve out of Jaipur and therefore, she joined Amar Jain Hospital at Jaipur but later on she resiled from this agreement and left Jaipur and therefore, it amounts to cruelty. PW 2 Moti Singh and PW 3 Dr. Suman has corroborated this statement of appellant. On the other hand, wife Smt. Sangeeta has stated that any such condition was not put prior to marriage. It is also stated that since she was selected, she joined service as a doctor at Khairada. Looking to the entire evidence on the record, the statement of the appellant does not inspire any confidence, that a qualified MBBS doctor would agree prior to the marriage that she will not join any service out of Jaipur and particularly with this background that the appellant husband was not in any permanent job. 10. Allegations regarding threats to commit suicide and attempts to commit suicide have also not been proved at all. It is stated in para 23 of the application that in June 1994, she threatened the appellant husband that in case he prevents her to settle at Udaipur, she would commit suicide being a doctor. Thereafter, she consumed four Brufain tablets each of 400 mg. after informing the appellant husband. It is also stated in para 24 that she on 3.7.1994, consumed four tablets of William and went to bed after saying good-bye to the appellant husband. In Para 25 of the application, it is pleaded that on 11.7.1994, she came to the house with a book titled 'How to suicide' and threatened the appellant husband that in case she is prevented to go to Udaipur, she would commit suicide. One more such incident is mentioned in para 16 of the application that Smt. Sangeeta was pregnant for one month in September 1992 and she wanted to abort. One more such incident is mentioned in para 16 of the application that Smt. Sangeeta was pregnant for one month in September 1992 and she wanted to abort. When the appellant husband did not agree, she took out mercury by breaking B.P. instruments and swallowed the same to commit suicide but she was saved. The non-applicant Smt. Sangeeta has denied all these allegations and rightly so because she being a qualified doctor was in a better position to commit suicide if she really ever desired to do so. No doubt, the appellant husband has given oral evidence regarding these facts supported by his father and sister. But mere oral statement on such grave allegations is not sufficient to prove. If she attempted to commit suicide so many times, what prevented appellant husband to initiate any proceedings against her. Even no evidence regarding any treatment has been adduced. On the other hand. Smt. Sangeeta has denied emphatically all these allegations. She has stated that the appellant wants to re-marry and only for this purpose he has made these false allegations against her. In view of totality of the facts and circumstances the conclusion of the learned trial Judge on this aspect is also accepted. The allegations regarding abortion also appear to be without any basis. Rather she gave birth to a son in June, 1993. 11. The other allegations of cruelty are that Smt. Sangeeta used to misbehave with her husband and her in-laws. She did not do any domestic work, she made false allegations regarding demand of dowry, she used to sleep late in the morning. In para 12 of the application, it is also stated that whenever the mother of the appellant husband asked her to prepare her own break-fast and meals, she used to misbehave. 12. These allegations of general nature also appear to be without any merit. There seems no reason that when the non-applicant was residing with her-in-laws, what was the reason for the mother of the appellant husband to ask Smt. Sangeeta to prepare break-fast and meal only for herself. On perusal of the entire evidence regarding these allegations, it appears that there is no merit in these allegations and these are the allegations for the sake of allegations. On perusal of the entire evidence regarding these allegations, it appears that there is no merit in these allegations and these are the allegations for the sake of allegations. It has also been stated by the appellant husband that his wife did not inform him about the birth of their son but he himself has admitted in cross-examination that he got the information on 25.6.1993. He has also admitted in cross-examination that duty hours of her wife in hospital at Jaipur were from 7 to 2, 2 to 9 and 9 to 7 a.m. in the shifts. In view of these admissions, the complaint of appellant husband and his parents that she did not perform any domestic work, seems to be without any basis. The contention of learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta on the basis of para Nos. 30 and 37 of the reply of the non-applicant Smt. Sangeeta, cannot be accepted at all that it amounts to cruelty because she wanted that her husband should come to her to live at Khairada. The appellant husband has also relied upon Ex. 1, a document containing the admission of Smt. Sangeeta that she has consumed mercury. The relevant portion of Ex. 1 is like this: Maine mercury Khaya Uski Jimmedar Main Hoon. Kisi Ki Koi responsibility Nahi Hain. This does not bear the signatures of Smt. Sangeeta and Smt. Sangeeta has specifically denied this writing to be her own. Therefore, Ex. 1 (Ex. 6) is not proved at all to be in the hand-writing of Smt. Sangeeta, otherwise also it does not appear to be natural that she being a doctor would reduce her such admission in writing which being an attempt to commit suicide may amount to an offence. 13. Having considered the entire material on record, the conclusion of the learned trial Court appears to be reasonable and acceptable. Thus, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******