Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. Reconciliation efforts made but not succeeded. 2. This is a husbands appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1999, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal, who, dismissed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Shri Ram Chander against his wife Anguri Devi. 3. It has been inter alia pleaded by the appellant that his marriage with the respondent took place on 6.3.1968. The parties to the marriage co-habited with each other and a female child was born in the year 1983 i.e. after 15 years of the marriage. It is the common case of the parties that they co- habited with each other as husband and wife for 18 years. The petitioner is seeking the divorce by alleging that the behaviour of the respondent became disrespectful, non-co-operative, rude and offensive. Since the solemnisation of the marriage, she used to treat the petitioner with cruelty and she also used to hurl abuses. Respondent was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial home without the consent of the appellant and against his wishes. After 18 years of the marriage, respondent left the matrimonial home with the minor child. She filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She further filed a criminal case under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C. in the year 1994 against the petitioner and his family members and all these acts committed on the part of the respondent are the acts of cruelty. It was further pleaded by the petitioner-appellant that he filed apetition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of the conjugal rights and for the custody of the minor child. A compromise took place between the parties and as a result of that, respondent again started residing in the house of the appellant but after some period the behaviour of the respondent became cruel and she used to give the threats that she would commit suicide or that she would given poison to the family members of the appellant. Once, during the harvesting season of wheat in the year 1998, a packet of pesticides was recovered from the possession of the respondent and when the petitioner sought the explanation from the respondent, she could not give any proper explanation. She left the house along with minor child and while leaving the house she took the jewellery articles worth Rs. Once, during the harvesting season of wheat in the year 1998, a packet of pesticides was recovered from the possession of the respondent and when the petitioner sought the explanation from the respondent, she could not give any proper explanation. She left the house along with minor child and while leaving the house she took the jewellery articles worth Rs. 12,000/-. So much so, respondent also filed a civil suit against the petitioner in the month September 1998 without any rhyme or reason. 4. With these" broad allegations, the petitioner-appel-lant has prayed that he should, be granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 5. Notice of the petition was given to the respondent who filed the reply. According to respondent, the petitioner-appellant in fact wanted to re-marry. He wanted to get rid of the respondent. He had been taunting the respondent that she was not in a position to give birth to malechild. He rather treated the respondent with cruelty. The petitioner-appellant is in the habit of taking liquor. In pursuance of the compromise, all the previous cases were withdrawn by the respondent but after the withdrawal of the criminal litigation against the petitioner his behaviour became very cruel, as a result of that, the respondent had to file a civil suit against the petitioner because the petitioner wanted to perform a second marriage. With this broad defence the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder in which he reiterated the averments made in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 3. Relief. 7. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case and for the reasons given in para Nos. 14 to 23 of judgment dated 25.10.1999, passed by the trial Court, the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed and paras No. 14 to 23 are reproduced as under :- "14. The parties to the present petition were married more than 31 years back. 14 to 23 of judgment dated 25.10.1999, passed by the trial Court, the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed and paras No. 14 to 23 are reproduced as under :- "14. The parties to the present petition were married more than 31 years back. It is admitted by the petitioner that the parties had cohabited for a continuous period of 18 years. It also emerges from the evidence, led by the parties, that there was no major matrimonial dispute for a period of 18 years and present rift in their relation had started thereafter. 15. It is the stand of respondent that [his wedlock could not result in the birth of a male child. The only female child was born after a period of 15 years of the marriage. Petitioner wanted that a male child should be bom. When the petitioner could not get a son from the respondent, in order to fulfil his desire to perform a second marriage, he started taunting and harassing the respondent and so that relations become strained. The respondent was forced to leave her matrimonial home. 16. The aforesaid version of the respondent seems to be justified from the evidence led on the file. Moreover, the entire case of husband is based on vague assertions and unconvincing evidence. The husband has filed the present petition on some frivolous allegations. He asserted that soon after the marriage respondent had started misbehaving with him and his family members. She also used to call bad names and she also used to leave matrimonial home every now and then. All these allegations have been made by the petitioner after a gap of 30 years of the present mar-riage. Such a long delay in seeking the relief of divorce on the aforesaid ground cannot be just filed in any manner. Such allegations coming after a period of 30 years cannot be believed. Moreover, the petitioner has made vague allegation that respondent used to misbehave have with him and his family members. He has nowhere given any details of the said misbehaviour. There is only the sole and self-serving statement of the petitioner regarding allegation of misbehaviour and use of abusive language etc. None of the family members of the petitioner has come forward to support his case in this behalf. He has nowhere given any details of the said misbehaviour. There is only the sole and self-serving statement of the petitioner regarding allegation of misbehaviour and use of abusive language etc. None of the family members of the petitioner has come forward to support his case in this behalf. In case the said misbehaviour and use of abusive lan-guagewas proving to be mental cruelty, the petitioner was expected to have lodged a protest in some manner. There is no evidence on the file to show that he had complained to anyone regarding the said conduct or that he has ever collected a panchayat for the said purpose. So, the aforesaid averments, which are the basis of present petition, cannot be believed. 17. After the respondent had left the matrimonial home it was quite natural that she would seek some maintenance from her husband. She had a legal right to claim such maintenance and accordingly she filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 29.3.1984. The respondent had put in appearance in the said proceedings but had absented himself and was proceeded ex parts. He never made any attempt for setting aside the _said ex parte proceedings. Accordingly the petition as decided on 15.12.1990. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated and the said proceedings went on till 18.5.1994 when the respondent, for the first time paid a sum of Rs. 7800/- towards maintenance to his wife. Thus, the petitioner managed to avoid his responsibility for paying maintenance to his wife and his minor daughter, for a period of more than 8 years. This fact would itself show the conduct of the husband. 18. When the wife failed to obtain maintenance from her husband for a such a long period she had initiated proceedings under Sections 406/498-A on 20.1.1993. After the filing of the said criminal proceedings, the attitude of the husband seems to have undergone a drastic change. After seven years of the said separation period, from 1986 onwards, the husband had not filed any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, or for obtaining the custody of male child. But after filing of said criminal proceedings, the husband seems to have suddenly woken up to his conjugal rights. A process for compromise was also put into the motion. Soon, the parties had compromised, on the condition that they would withdraw all the cases pending in the Courts against each other. But after filing of said criminal proceedings, the husband seems to have suddenly woken up to his conjugal rights. A process for compromise was also put into the motion. Soon, the parties had compromised, on the condition that they would withdraw all the cases pending in the Courts against each other. Thus, the criminal case filed against the petitioner under Sections 406/498-A IPC was also withdrawn. The wife (respondent) returned to the matrimonial home but again she met the same treatment and the parties separated again in 1998. 19. It was argued that the filing of the criminal case under Sections 406/498-A IPC against the husband after almost 25 years of the marriage clearly shows that it was a false case and so it would amount to a clear case of cruelty against the husband. The said arguments had to be rejected. The circumstances in which the criminal case was filed is clear from the above facts. Once the wife was sure that there was no further change of resumption of matrimonial alliance, she was entitled to demand from the husband her stridhan articles, and on the refusal of the husband to return the same she was fully entitled to file a criminal complaint against the husband. It cannot be said that the filing of a complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC would amount to mental cruelty to husband and give him cause to seek divorce. 20. Another allegation made by the husband is that respondent is playing in the hands of her brothers. she had inherited about 7 acres of agricultural land and she had already transferred at the said property in favour of her brothers by acivil Court decree. So, it was submitted that brothers are interested in instigating their sister to desert the petitioner and reside at the parental home. The said argument also has no merit. Property in question was inherited by the respondent after the death of her father. As is the usual custom and practice the sisters usually transfers such inherited property in favour of their brothers. It has come in evidence that all the sisters of the respondent have already transferred their shares in favour of their brothers. Mutation Ex.P. 15, placed on the file shows that respondent along with her mother and her sister Shanti transferred their shares in favour of Pirthi and Dalipa, brothers of respondent on 5.8.1991. It has come in evidence that all the sisters of the respondent have already transferred their shares in favour of their brothers. Mutation Ex.P. 15, placed on the file shows that respondent along with her mother and her sister Shanti transferred their shares in favour of Pirthi and Dalipa, brothers of respondent on 5.8.1991. Once the said land had already been obtained by the brothers, then there could have been no reason for the brothers to have prepared their sisters. The said brothers do not stand to gain anything from the said break in relationship between the parties to this petition. So, the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner have no substance. 21. The petitioner had also alleged that the wife has been holding out threats of committing suicide and was also found in possession of some poison, which she wanted to use against the petitioner and his family members. The said assertion it is again vague and unconvincing. None of the family members of the petitioner has come forward to support his stand. The petitioner has also not lodged any complaint in this regard before any authority. He also did not convey and panchayat to lodge his protest. 22. Another evidence heavily relied upon by the petitioner is document Ex.P.l showing that a panchayat was convened on 21.9.1999 during pendency of present petition. It is alleged that brothers of respondent had attended this panchayat and they had laid down a condition that husband should first (sic) parental home, by the respondent. These allegations are highly belated and carry no substance. The version of the respondent that petitioner wants to perform a second marriage looks more probably. All the incidents of the last 10/12 years, seem to be the own making of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to discharge the ends (onus ?) placed on him and hence is not entitled to obtain a decree of divorce. 23. The counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on the following judgments : AIR 1997 Kerala 170, P.K. Vijayappan Nair v. Am-minl Amma. In the said judgment it was proved that wife had been filing false civil and criminal cases one after another against husband. But this is not true of the present case. In this case the two behaviour case (Criminal cases ?) have not been proved to be false. AIR 1993 Delhi 135, Rajinder Bhardwaj v. Mrs. Anita Sharma. In the said judgment it was proved that wife had been filing false civil and criminal cases one after another against husband. But this is not true of the present case. In this case the two behaviour case (Criminal cases ?) have not been proved to be false. AIR 1993 Delhi 135, Rajinder Bhardwaj v. Mrs. Anita Sharma. In this judgment it was explained that under the Panchayat Act cruelty has to be of the type which should satisfy the conscience of the Court to believe that the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of one of the spouses that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress and filing of false and scandalous cases by one spouse against other amounts to cruelty. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to prove that deterioration in relationship is a result of the conduct of respondent. Rathcrthe said deterioration seems to be from the side or the husband, AIR 1956 Punjab and Haryana 98, Rana Kanta v. Mohinder Laxlndas Bhandula. In the said case, the behaviour of the wife was not cordial. She was disrespectful towards her in-laws. She held out through an attempt to commit suicide. She also lodged false case against her husband and relations. The said conduct was considered as sufficient to justify divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said judgment would not help the case of the petitioner because in the said judgment, the allegations against wife have not been made after a gap of 30 years. The parties were married on 6.5.1987 and they separated on 8.6.1988. Pi-vorce petition was also filed in the year 1988. Moreover, each case is to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts. In the said case the aforesaid allegations were held to be sufficiently proved. The same is not true in the present case. AIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 92, Smt. Parmt Mehar Seshu v. Nagesware Sastiy. In (he said case, it was held that frequent desertion by wife without any reason would amount to cruelty. In the present case the said allegations of frequent desertions had not been proved. Moreover, the said allegations have been made after a gap of 30 years. So, the said judgment does not help the case of the petitioner." 8. In (he said case, it was held that frequent desertion by wife without any reason would amount to cruelty. In the present case the said allegations of frequent desertions had not been proved. Moreover, the said allegations have been made after a gap of 30 years. So, the said judgment does not help the case of the petitioner." 8. Not satisfied with the judgment and decreed of the trial Court, the present appeal has been filed by the husband. 9. Reconciliation efforts were made before the start of the arguments but could not succeed. 10. I have heard Shri P.N. Arora, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Vinod Bhardwaj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 11. It is the common case of the parties that the appellant was married with the respondent in the year 1968. So much so a female child was born in the year 1983 after a period of 15 years. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that respondent lived in his house for 18 years. If for 18 years the respondent was not a source of nuisance and cruelty to the appellant, it is difficult for this Court to hold that the conduct of the respondent was such that she treated the appellant with cruelty. 12. The petitioner-appellant in this case examined three witnesses. He himself appeared as his own witness as PW-1. He also examined Chuhria Ram as PW-2 and Bali PW-3. I have gone through the statement of the petitioner with the assistance rendered by the counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that the bald statement of the petitioner cannot be relied upon in order to give a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion or cruelty. It is strange that not a single relation of the petitioner-appellant came in the witness box to corroborate the allegations of cruelty. Unfortunately for the respondent, she could not give birth to a male child. Rather, the birth of a female child was also belated when the respondent gave the birth oi a female child in the year 1983. It is strange that not a single relation of the petitioner-appellant came in the witness box to corroborate the allegations of cruelty. Unfortunately for the respondent, she could not give birth to a male child. Rather, the birth of a female child was also belated when the respondent gave the birth oi a female child in the year 1983. The intention of the respondent right from the very beginning was to reha-bililate herself inspite of the fact that she filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or that shhe filed a complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. and she withdrew the same. When the petitioner, on the contrary, filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent became wiljing and she accompanied the petitioner and settled in the matrimonial home. All this type of conduct of the respondent indicates that she had never deserted the petitioner not she ever, behaved the petitioner with cruelty. Broad probabilities of this case go in favour on the respondent who unfortunately could not deliver a mate child It is also stated at the bar by the counsel for the respondent that even the female child has now expired. The petitioner basically is an agriculturist. He and his brothers inherited about 20 acres of agricullural land from their father. The appellant is in possession of six acresofland. It is always the tendency of an agriculturist that the ancestral land should remain in his family. The petitioner-appellant perhaps is apprehensive that this land might go to his wife who may give the land to her brother. With this background if the defence of the respondent is viewed it is more probable that in fact the petitioner-appellant wants to get rid of her. He is interested for the second marriage so that he may get 9 male child from the prospective second wife and for that reason respondent had to file a civil suit against the petitioner-appellant that he should not remarry during the subsistence of the present marriage. 13. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the parties are now residing separately for the last more than 21 years. There are no chance of reconciliation. The marriage between the parties has broken irretrievably, therefore, the divorce should be granted. 14. 13. Faced with this difficulty, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the parties are now residing separately for the last more than 21 years. There are no chance of reconciliation. The marriage between the parties has broken irretrievably, therefore, the divorce should be granted. 14. The argument is so dangerous and it cannot be accepted as it does not stand to the test of scrutiny for a single moment. The petitioner-appellant cannot take the advantage of his own wrong. If he has turned out the respondent from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and if he is not interested to rehabilitate her where the lady should go. She has to go the house of her brother and parents etc. I have not been able to get any impression from the evidence led by the petitioner to show that respondents behaviour was such that she had treated the petitioner-appellant with cruelty. The allegations of the cruelty are vague. Even in the Panchayat there was no categorical assertion on behalf of the respondent that she was not interested to rehabilitate herself, in the house of the appellant. 15. In this view of the matter, I do not want to differ with the reasons adopted by the trial Court, which dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs