Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The husband-appellant having remained unsuccessful in his endeavour to seek divorce before the learned District Judge, Sirsa has filed the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred as husband and wife. 3. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking the dissolution of his marriage with Smt. Bholi, respondent-wife. It was averred by him that the marriage between the parties was solemnized about 21 years prior to the filing of the present petition for divorce. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock two female issues and one male issue were born. It was claimed by the husband that the wife was a lady of quarrelsome, notorious nature and she used to pick up the dispute with him on trivial matters, it was further stated by him that she threatened to kill the husband by administering the poison. She used to insult him and his family members in the presence of his relatives and friends. The husband further averred that he continued living with the wife considering the pious relationship between them with the hope that she would mend her attitude. Ultimately, the wife left her matrimonial home in the year 1991 along with two younger children and she took away all her belongings. Since that time she was stated to be residing at her parental house. The husband further maintained that he tried his level best to bring her back by taking many panchayats but all efforts failed. 4. The case of the husband further proceeds to state that the wife had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which was allowed and maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month was granted to her and two children. Later on, in a revision petition the maintenance allowance was reduced to Rs. 700/-per month. The wife even got registered an FIR under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against the husband, his brothers, mother and sisters. It is claimed by the husband that the aforesaid case was based upon the false allegations and was got registered with a view to harass the husband and his family members. 700/-per month. The wife even got registered an FIR under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against the husband, his brothers, mother and sisters. It is claimed by the husband that the aforesaid case was based upon the false allegations and was got registered with a view to harass the husband and his family members. The husband has further stated that the wife had started living separately for the last more than six years and as such had deserted the husband. On these allegations, the husband claimed that the wife had treated him with cruelty and had also deserted him and, therefore, on those averments a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage was claimed by him. 5. The wife appeared before the learned trial Judge and contested the divorce petition. She filed a written statement. All the material allegations contained in the divorce petition were denied by her. It was averred by the wife that in fact the husband was trying to make out false grounds for seeking the divorce. It was specifically averred by her that she did not ever treat the husband with cruelty nor ever tried to kill him. 6. On the other hand, she stated that the husband treated her with cruelty and given her merciless beatings and ultimately she was turned out of her matrimonial home by the husband. Since then she was living with her parents. The factum of convening any panchayat was also denied by the wife. However, she admitted that she had got registered a case under Section 498-A IPC but it was maintained by her that in fact it was because of the reasonable demand of dowry and maltreatment that the case had been got registered by her. It was further averred in the petition that in spite of all the cruelties committed by the husband upon her, she was still ready to live with him. 7. The parties led their evidence during the course of trial. 8. Baibir Singh appeared as his own witness as PW1. He was supported by PW2 Shivraj Singh and PW3 Jeet Singh. Similarly, respondent Smt. Bholi appeared herself as her own witness as RW1. Her stand was supported by her father Puran Singh RW2. 7. The parties led their evidence during the course of trial. 8. Baibir Singh appeared as his own witness as PW1. He was supported by PW2 Shivraj Singh and PW3 Jeet Singh. Similarly, respondent Smt. Bholi appeared herself as her own witness as RW1. Her stand was supported by her father Puran Singh RW2. The trial Judge after taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the parties found that there was no substance in the allegations levelled by the husband to the effect that the wife had treated him with cruelly or that she had deserted him. Accordingly, the divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the husband has approached this Court through the present appeal challenging the judgment of the learned District Judge. 10. At this stage, it is pertinent to notice that vide order dated February 12, 2003, this Court had directed the parties to appear in person to find out as to whether there was any possibility of amicable settlement between them. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, the respondent-wife Smt. Bholi appeared in Court on March 12, 2003. However, Baibir Singh, appellant never came present. In fact, his learned counsel, Shri G.S. Bawa informed the Court that in spite of the message sent to him he had not come present. On that basis, it was noticed by me that it appeared that he was not interested in any settlement. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the parties were heard on merits. 11. Shri G.S. Bawa, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence on the record was sufficient to prove that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty but the learned trial Judge had failed to appreciate the aforesaid evidence in the correct perspective. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that the very fact that the wife had got registered a criminal case against the husband under Sections 406/498-A IPC and the fact that she had proceeded against the husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pointing to the fact that she was taking such steps which were only with a view to humiliate and harass the husband. It is further submitted by Shri Bawa that even otherwise the wife had deserted the husband and was living separately and, therefore, on that basis it is maintained by the learned counsel that the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce by the dissolution of marriage. 12. On the other hand, Shri G.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the entire evidence had been duly considered by the trial Judge while declining the claim of the appellant for seeking divorce from the husband-respondent. There is nothing on record to show that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty or had ever deserted him. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In my considered opinion, there is no merit in the present appeal. 14. The husband has appeared as PW1 and has stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized about 22/23 years ago and they had three children, namely, a daughter Kauri aged about 17/18 years, another daughter Araji aged about 13/14 years and a son Chand Singh aged about 11/12 years, The husband has maintained that the wife was a lady of bad temperament and was of quarrelsome nature and used to abuse him as well as his family members and used to pick up quarrel and used to insult him on petty matters. The husband has further deposed that the wife had treated him and his family members with utmost cruelty and she filed a complaint in the year 1992 under Section 498-A/34 IPC against him and his family members and also she initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Even the perusal of the statement of PW1 Balbir Singh does not show that the conduct of the wife could be termed to be cruelty in any manner against the husband or that it could be taken that she had deserted him in any manner. 15. While appreciating the evidence on the record the fact cannot be lost sight of that the parties were married 21 years prior to the filing of the divorce petition. Three children were born out of the said wedlock. 15. While appreciating the evidence on the record the fact cannot be lost sight of that the parties were married 21 years prior to the filing of the divorce petition. Three children were born out of the said wedlock. At this stage, when the children have grown up, it could not be suggested by the husband that the wife had ever treated the husband with such cruelty which would give cause of action to seek divorce from her. 16. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the present divorce petition had been filed by the husband merely with a view to create a defence in his own favour with regard to the proceedings under Sections 406,498-A IPC and also with a view to avoid the maintenance amount granted to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 17. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.