JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This is an appeal filed by the wife against the husband challenging the order dated 31.3.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband and against the appellant-wife. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-husband had filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant-wife, for declaration of the marriage between them as null and void and in the alternative for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. It was alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.8.1996 and that the parties lived together as husband-wife and one male issue was born out of this wedlock. It was alleged that few days prior to 18.8.1996, the appellant-wife had come to him in the temple where the petitioner used to live being a Sanyasi and she had told him that she was unmarried and herself wanted to become a Sanyasin and she become disciple and also distributed ladoos and thereafter she made a proposal for marriage with him, which was accepted by him and thereupon, the parties were married. It was alleged that in the month of March, 1997, it was revealed to him that the present appellant was already married at Kapurthala and she had also a child from the previous marriage and that her previous husband was still alive and without any legal and valid divorce, the marriage between the parties was illegal and void. It was alleged that at the time of marriage, she has concealed the factum of her previous marriage and had induced him to marry her by fraud and mis-representation. It was further alleged that after the marriage, she had started mis-behaving with him and had started treating him with cruelty. It was alleged that she refused to cook the meals and started mis-behaving with the visitors and when he requested her not to misbehave with the visitors, she refused to do so. It was further alleged that she got a false case registered against him along with his chela under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, in Police Station, Kalka and he remained in judicial custody for about 10 days on account of the said false case, registered against him, which was got registered by her in connivance with DSP, Panchkula. It was further alleged that she got a false case registered against him along with his chela under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, in Police Station, Kalka and he remained in judicial custody for about 10 days on account of the said false case, registered against him, which was got registered by her in connivance with DSP, Panchkula. It was alleged that she again got a false case registered against him under Section 313 IPC etc. and he got bail from the High Court, when she herself made a statement that she had delivered a normal baby. It was alleged that it was a false case got registered by her against him, inasmuch as there was no cruelty and no physical injury to her. It was alleged that during the pendency of the said criminal case, she misbehaved with him and also abused the witnesses. It was alleged that she had treated him with cruelty and he was entitled to the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on that account. 3. The said petition was contested by the appellant-wife by filing the written statement and alleging therein that in fact, she was a divorcee at the time of her second marriage, inasmuch as the previous marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the Court at Kapurthala. It was alleged that the factum of her previous marriage was well known to him at the time of the marriage and there was no question of any fraud and mis-representation. It was denied that she had never treated him with cruelty or had refused to prepare meals for him or used to misbehave with the visitors. It was also denied that she ever got a case under the NDPS Act, registered against him or had falsely got him implicated in any such case. It was alleged that in fact, he was a drug-addict and used to compel her to arrange opium and charas and when she refused, he gave her merciless beatings and filed the present petition against her. It was alleged that the case under Section 313 IPC was rightly got registered by her against him. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. It was alleged that the case under Section 313 IPC was rightly got registered by her against him. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. After recording evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, found that no case for declaring the marriage between the parties as illegal and void is made out, inasmuch as the present appellant was already divorcee from her previous husband at the time of her marriage with the present respondent. With regard to the allegations of cruelty, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that the allegations of cruelty made by the husband against the wife were fully proved on the record. Resultantly, the marriage between the parties was ordered to be dissolved by a decree of divorce, vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 on the ground of cruelty. Aggrieved against the same, the wife filed the present appeal is this Court. 5. Since the appeal was barred by time, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. 6. After hearing both sides, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide order dated 23.1.2001. On the same day i.e. 23.1.2001, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband had submitted before the Court that the respondent-husband had already re-married after the present divorce. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed behalf of the respondent-husband for placing on record the Marriage Certificate of the respondent-husband wife regard to his second marriage with Smt. Durga Devi on 28.5.2000. Vide order dated 28.2.2001, this application was ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge, had erred law in is dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife. It was submitted that in fact, there was nothing on the record to show that the appellant-wife had treated the respondent-husband with cruelty and as such the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in granting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife. It was submitted that in fact, there was nothing on the record to show that the appellant-wife had treated the respondent-husband with cruelty and as such the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in granting the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife. One of the grounds on which the respondent-husband had sought the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce against the appellant-wife was that she had lodged a false case against him under Section 313 IPC etc., even though she had delivered a normal child. Exhibit P-1 is the copy of the judgment dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Ambala, vide which the present respondent, Narender Puri was acquitted in case bearing FIR No. 79 of 1997 of Police Station Kalka, under Sections 315/323/506 IPC, which was registered at the instance of the present appellant, Smt. Saroj Bhandari (wife), in respect of an occurrence which had allegedly taken place on 21.4.1997. 9. A perusal of the said judgment would show that after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court and that the accused was charged under Sections 315/323/506 IPC and after recording the prosecution evidence and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and after hearing both sides, the accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him. 10. While acquitting the accused in this case, it was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the discrepancies in the statements of PW-5, Smt. Saroj Bhandari and PW6 Smt. Sumitra Devi, would demolish the case of the prosecution and that these discrepancies would show that either no such occurrence had taken place or that the version told by the witnesses is not truthful. It was also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused caused injuries to Smt. Saroj Bhandari with an intention of preventing the child of Smt. Saroj Bhandari from being born alive. The statements of PW-5, Smt. Saroj Bhandari and PW6 Smt. Sumitra Devi, mother of Smt. Saroj Bhandari, recorded in Criminal Case under Sections 315/323/506 IPC have been placed on the record as Exhibits P-1 and P-3, respectively. 11. The statements of PW-5, Smt. Saroj Bhandari and PW6 Smt. Sumitra Devi, mother of Smt. Saroj Bhandari, recorded in Criminal Case under Sections 315/323/506 IPC have been placed on the record as Exhibits P-1 and P-3, respectively. 11. As referred to above, the present appellant, Smt. Saroj Bhandari had got a case under Sections 305/323/506 IPC registered against the present respondent, Narender Puri in the police station with regard to occurrence which had allegedly taken place on 21.4.1997 and in the said case, accused Narender Puri was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, holding that either no such occurrence had taken place or that the version told by the witnesses, is not truthful. Thus, it would be clear that the allegations made by the present appellant, Smt. Saroj Bhandari, were found to be not truthful and resultantly, Narender Puri was acquitted of the charges framed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13.1.1998. If the present appellant, Smt. Saroj Bhandari (wife) had levelled serious allegations against her husband, namely, Narender Puri and others and those allegations were found not to have been proved, in my opinion, this by itself would give a cause to the present respondent, Narender Puri to seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty. Furthermore, in the present petition, Narender Puri, himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and deposed about the cruelty caused by the wife towards him including the lodging of an FIR against him under Sections 315/323/506 IPC, alleging therein that it was a false case and that he was acquitted in the said case. Narender Puri also examined PW2, Subhash Chander and PW3, Dayal Kaur, in support of his case, besides, tendering various documents, including the judgment passed in the case under Sections 315/323/506 IPC and the copies of the statements made by Smt. Saroj Bhandari and her mother Smt. Sumitra Devi. In order to rebut the evidence led by the husband, Smt. Saroj Bhandari, herself appeared in the witness box as RW1 and also examined RW2, Pankaj Sharma, Criminal Ahlmad. 12. In order to rebut the evidence led by the husband, Smt. Saroj Bhandari, herself appeared in the witness box as RW1 and also examined RW2, Pankaj Sharma, Criminal Ahlmad. 12. After going through the evidence led by the parties, in my opinion, it stands fully proved on the record that Smt. Saroj Bhandari (wife) had caused cruelty to her husband, Narender Puri by making false allegations against him with regard to the offence under Section 315/323/506 IPC and that Narender Puri was acquitted in the said case, which was lodged by her. It would be also clear that even in this petition that Smt. Saroj Bhandari, has miserably failed to prove her allegations made by her against Narender Puri with regard to the said occurrence, which had allegedly taken place on 21.4.1997. No evidence was led by her in support of her allegations except herself appearing in witness box as RW1. From the sole testimony of RW1, Smt. Saroj Bhandari, in my opinion, it is not proved on the record that the present respondent, Narender Puri had ever tried to cause abortion to the present appellant, Smt. Saroj Bhandari (wife) as alleged by her. In my opinion, this act of Smt. Saroj Bhandari in lodging a false case against her husband, Narender Puri, entitles him to seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 13. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge, was perfectly justified in ordering the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty in favour of the husband and against the wife and no fault could be found with the same and accordingly, I affirm the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No. 2. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.