JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Smt. Rajbala, the wife has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.10.1999, passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide which the petition filed by her husband Shri Sukhbir Singh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been allowed. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2.9.1987. Out of this wedlock, a daughter has been born. On 4.9.1996, the respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by alleging therein that from the very beginning the appellant-wife used to quarrel with him and had been compelling him to leave his parental village and start living with her at her parental house. Since the respondent-husband was living with his aged mother as his father had died in his childhood, it was not possible for him to leave his mother alone and to live at the house of the parents of the appellant as Ghar Jamai. It has been further averred that when he refused to live at her parents house, the appellant harassed him and threatened to involve him and his family members in a false criminal case. Ultimately, on 31.7.1989, a Panchayat was convened to re concile the differences between the parties. But the appellant flatly refused to live with him at his parental house. Thereupon, a compromise was effected before the Panchayat which was reduced into writing on which her father put his signatures. According to that compromise, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given by the respondent-husband to the father of the appellant on account of marriage expenses and all the dowry articles were returned. It was settled that relations between the parties had broken permanently and they would be at liberty to marry on their choice elsewhere. After that, the appellant-wife left the house of the respondent- husband on 31.7.1989. Thereafter, she never came back to his house. It was further submitted that in December, 1989, the appellant-wife got a false case registered against him and his other family members under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. Thereupon, the aforesaid divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband. 3. After that, the appellant-wife left the house of the respondent- husband on 31.7.1989. Thereafter, she never came back to his house. It was further submitted that in December, 1989, the appellant-wife got a false case registered against him and his other family members under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. Thereupon, the aforesaid divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband. 3. The appellant-wife contested the aforesaid divorce petition. She pleaded that the respondent-husband and his relatives were greedy persons and they have tortured her for having brought insufficient dowry for which she filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. She further pleaded that she always discharged all her matrimonial obligations as a sincere wife. She never deserted the respondent-husband. Rather, she also took an additional plea that the respondent-husband had contracted a second marriage with one Paramajit Kaur on 25.9.1995 without seeking a divorce from her and a son was born out of the second marriage in the year 1996. Therefore, she is not the guilty of desertion. 4. In support of their respective contentions, both the parties have led evidence. After considering the said evidence and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar allowed the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband and pased a decree of divorce in his favour on both the grounds of desertion as well as of cruelty. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the appellant-wife the filed the instant appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. Undisputedly, the parties are living separately since 31.7.1989. The learned Additional District Judge has also recorded this finding after considering the evidence led by both the parties. The stand taken by the appellant-wife is that she is not guilty of desertion as she was justified to live separately from the respondent-husband on two counts. Firstly, that the respondent-husband and his family members were greedy persons and they were harassing her for brining insufficient dowry, for which she filed a complaint against them under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C., on the basis of which, an F.I.R. was registered on 4.12.1989 against the respondent-husband and his family members. Firstly, that the respondent-husband and his family members were greedy persons and they were harassing her for brining insufficient dowry, for which she filed a complaint against them under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C., on the basis of which, an F.I.R. was registered on 4.12.1989 against the respondent-husband and his family members. Secondly, the respondent-husband has contracted second marriage with one Paramjit Kaur and was living with her and from that marriage, a male child was born. 7. On the other hand, the respondent-husband has pleaded and proved that the appellant-wife was adamant from the very beginning of the marriage to take him to her parental house and settle there as Ghar Jamai. On that account, she used to harass him and threatened him that if he did not accede to her request, she will implicate him and his entire family in a criminal case. With that object, a false complaint was filed against him under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. with the police, on the basis of which, an F.I.R. was registered against him and his family members. In this F.I.R., the respondent-husband was acquitted. The appellant-wife could not establish the allegations regarding demand of dowry and her harassment on that account. The allegations levelled by her in this regard in the complaint made by her, on the basis of which, F.I.R. No. 110 dated 4.12.1989 was registered under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. against the respondent and his family members, were found false and the respondent and his family members were acquitted in the aforesaid F.I.R. vide order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. Secondly, the appellant-wife could not prove the allegations of the alleged second marriage by the respondent-husband. The learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar has recorded a finding against the appellant in this regard after appreciating the evidence led by her on this account. Thus, the appellant-wife could not establish any sufficient cause for living separately from her husband, though she admitted that she was living separately from her husband since 31.7.1989. Therefore, the allegation of desertion has been established on the record and the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar has rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent-husband. 8. Thus, the appellant-wife could not establish any sufficient cause for living separately from her husband, though she admitted that she was living separately from her husband since 31.7.1989. Therefore, the allegation of desertion has been established on the record and the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar has rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent-husband. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade this Court that the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the alleged second marriage contracted by the respondent-husband is not correct and the same is not in accordance with the evidence available on the record. In this regard, he has submitted that the appellant-wife and her brother and one Mohinder Singh, while appearing as RW2 and RW3, have categorically stated that the respondent-husband had contracted the second marriage with one Paramjit Kaur. He further submitted that an enquiry report Ex. R-1 was given against the respondent-husband when he was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. In that enquiry report, it was found that he had contracted second marriage. The said enquiry report was produced by RW1-Neeru Bakshi and official of the Deputy Commissioner office. He also submitted that one independent witness, Surinder Kumar, who appeared as RW4, has also corroborated the version of the second marriage by the respondent- husband. He Further submitted that the appellant-wife had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent-husband, his second wife and other family members under Sections 494, 497, 498 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. The said complaint is still pending in which only the husband was summoned and the alleged second wife and other persons were not summoned. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel in this regard. In my opinion, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge has considered all the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the appellant. It has been established on record that the alleged second wife, Smt. Paramjit Kaur, is actually the wife of Mohinder Singh, cousin brother of the respondent-husband. A child was born from the said couple, who was recorded as a child of Mohinder Singh in the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths. It has been established on record that the alleged second wife, Smt. Paramjit Kaur, is actually the wife of Mohinder Singh, cousin brother of the respondent-husband. A child was born from the said couple, who was recorded as a child of Mohinder Singh in the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths. The case of the appellant is that actually the said child is of the respondent- husband, but his name was wrongly entered as son of Mohinder Singh in the said record. This allegation of the appellant cannot be accepted at all. Merely, on the statement of the appellant and her brother and one person, it cannot be held that the respondent-husband had contracted second marriage with Paramjit Kaur and from that alleged wedlock, a child was born whose name was wrongly recorded in the office of Registrar, Births and Deaths as son of Mohinder Singh. The appellant-wife did not lead any evidence of any respectables of village Bilaspur from where the lady Paramjit Kaur belongs to establish that she was married to the respondent-husband. Even, in the written statement, the stand taken by the appellant is that fathers name of the child has been shown to be of Mohinder Singh with intention to conceal the second marriage. There is no reliable evidence on the record to establish this fact. No person of village Bilaspur or the other relatives of Amar Singh, father of Paramjit Kaur or other persons close to him or the Priest, who performed the alleged second marriage have been examined to establish that the second marriage had taken place between the respondent-husband and said Paramjit Kaur. Therefore, I find no infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in this regard. 10. As regards the finding on the issue of cruelty is concerned, the same has been established only on account that the appellant-wife has levelled false allegations of harassment and demand of dowry against the respondent-husband and his family members. The respondent and his family members have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C. by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari vide his judgment dated 15.11.1997. It is well settled that levelling of false allegations against the husband by the wife itself amount to cruelty. The respondent and his family members have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 406/498-A I.P.C. by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari vide his judgment dated 15.11.1997. It is well settled that levelling of false allegations against the husband by the wife itself amount to cruelty. In this regard, reliance can be made to Smt. Parvati v. Prem Singh, 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 83 (Rajasthan) and Manjit Kaur v. Avtar Singh, 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 268 (P&H). In Smt. Parvatis case (supra), it has been held that the wife having doubt or belief that her husband waqs having illicit relations with his brothers wife, but in the absence of any such evidence except that her husband himself used to say so, the allegation was held to be unfounded and the charge of false adultery amounts to cruelty on part of the wife; and dissolution of marriage was upheld. 11. In Manjit Kaurs case (supra), it has been held by this Court that unfounded allegations of adultery consists of cruelty. The marriage is a trust between the male and female partner and if irresponsible allegations are levelled by the spouse against each other, it will held that the spouse when makes reckless allegations without any basis, does so, at his/her own risk and responsibility. It has been further held that levelling of false allegations by the wife to the extent that her husband was leading an adulterous life is an act of cruelty and even a single act of cruelty after marriage is a valid ground for divorce. 12. Thus, I find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly recorded the finding of cruelty against the appellant-wife. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no force in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.