Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the wife, Mrs. Chanchal Mahajan, against whom a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty, was passed by the court of Shri G.S. Sandhu, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh in a petition filed by the husband, Surinder Kumar Mahajan, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, case of the husband, who was petitioner before the trial Court, was that marriage of the parties was solemnised, on 10.7.1985, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. This was his second marriage. First wife, Arun Bala, had died on 19.2.1984, after birth of a son, Shammi. Out of the wedlock of the parties, a female child, Shashi, was born on 24.2.1987. 3. After marriage, parties had been living in Chandigarh. The appellant, who was posted at Patiala, in the Excise and Taxation Department, used to commute daily to Patiala. But, one day in the month of January, 1986, she did not return from Patiala. On the next morning, the respondent went to Patiala, and came to know from there that she had gone to her parents house at Dinanagar, along with her mother, after taking casual leave for few days. Accordingly, he accompanied by his relations, went to Dinanagar, and brought her back on the condition that he (respondent) would live separately from his parents. He, then, took House No. 2265, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh, on rent, and he, his son, Shammi, and the appellant started living in that, with effect from 4.4.1986. Thereafter, Shammi became the bone of contention between the parties. The respondent, in order to resolve the issue, got him (Shammi) admitted in the hostel of Satluj Public School, Panchkula, in April, 1988. The appellant still did not feel satisfied. Ultimately, she got herself transferred to Hoshiarpur and started putting up there. The respondent went there to bring her, but she refused to come. However, through the intervention of one Shri Malik, they arrived at a mutual settlement and as per that, she was brought to Chandigarh on 10.11.1990, in House No. 1228, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. But, after a couple of days, it was decided that she would visit Chandigarh, only on alternate weekends, and otherwise, she would stay at her place of posting viz. Hoshiarpur. Her mother also shifted from Dinanagar to Hoshiarpur.. But, after a couple of days, it was decided that she would visit Chandigarh, only on alternate weekends, and otherwise, she would stay at her place of posting viz. Hoshiarpur. Her mother also shifted from Dinanagar to Hoshiarpur.. But, even this arrangement of visiting Chandigarh on alternate week-ends failed, and she stopped coming to this place. The respondent again went to bring her and requested her to get herself transferred to Chandigarh. But, she refused to come, and, at the instance of her mother, she also refuted the suggestion regarding her transfer to Chandigarh. She, then, wrote defamatory letters against the respondent, to his officers. 4. The appellant controverted all the adverse averments. Besides, she also took up a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition, as an earlier petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act, on similar allegations, had been dismissed by the Sub Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, on 9.6.1994. It was further pleaded that respondents first wife, Arun Bala, had died an unnatural death. According to the appellant, the respondent and his parents had concealed the factum of his first marriage, from her. The respondent used to beat her, after consuming liquor, and he and his parents had been making demands of money also, from her and her parents. 5. The trial Court framed the following issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of two years proceeding the presentation of the present petition? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Relief. 6. On the conclusion of trial, finding on issue No. 2 was recorded against the husband (petitioner before trial Court), while findings on issues No.l and 3 were recorded in his favour, and marriage of the parties was dissolved, on the ground of cruelty. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed this Court with regard to the finding of trial court in respect of issue No.l, only. No arguments were addressed in respect of the finding on issue No. 3 . In so far as the finding on issue No. 2 is concerned, the same is in favour of the appellant. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed this Court with regard to the finding of trial court in respect of issue No.l, only. No arguments were addressed in respect of the finding on issue No. 3 . In so far as the finding on issue No. 2 is concerned, the same is in favour of the appellant. 8. I have carefully considered the evidence on record as well as the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The marriage of parties has been dissolved by the trial Court on the ground that the appellant had levelled false and reckless defamatory allegations against the respondent, in a letter, copy Ex.PWl/A, addressed to his superior officers, and this act of hers amounted to an act of cruelty towards him. The correctness of this finding was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the ground that the original letter has not been proved in accordance with law. In my view, this contention of his need be noted, only for being ignored. Reason being that during the course of arguments, he did not dispute the fact that the appellant did address the letter in question to the superior of the respondent. But, according to him it was got written from her, forcibly, by the respondent himself. In this connection, he referred to two facts viz.(i) deposition of the appellant, as RW-4, wherein she explained that the respondent (herein) had forced her to write the defamatory letter against him and (ii) the denial of a suggestion by her, by stating that "It is incorrect to suggest that the letter Ex.PW-1/A was got written by the petitioner from me forcibly". But, since her specific plea that the letter was got forcibly written from her, remained totally unsubstantiated as no evidence was led to prove the same, her mere statement that the respondent got it forcibly written from her, or her denial of the said suggestion put to her, is of no use to her. This letter, it may be stated, was produced before the trial Court by none else but the Personnel Officer of the department, where the respondent is employed, viz. PW-1 Shri S.K. Arora. This letter, it may be stated, was produced before the trial Court by none else but the Personnel Officer of the department, where the respondent is employed, viz. PW-1 Shri S.K. Arora. After considering all such material facts, learned trial Court rightly refused to believe the above referred to explanation offered by the appellant about the letter in question, observing that (i) the respondent could not have had any reason to get a defamatory letter addressed from the appellant, to his superiors, and that (ii) prior to her deposition in court as RW1, she never brought it to the notice of any body that the respondent had forced her to write this letter. That being so, correctness of the finding of the trial court about this letter having been sent (voluntarily) by the appellant to the superiors of the respondent cannot be doubted, on any score. So, the only fact which remains to be considered is as to whether the allegations levelled in this letter amount to an act of cruelty or not? To my mind, at least two allegations levelled therein are clearly defamatory, and those are, that the respondent had illicit relations with another woman and that he (respondent) had been saying that he had burnt his first wife and he would burn the appellant also. As already stated above, neither of these two allegations was got proved in evidence, by the appellant. Rather, there is positive evidence of none else but the real sister of the previous wife of the respondent, PW-2 Rajni, that due to psychiatric problem, her sister had committed suicide. She made matters further clear by stating that no action was taken against the respondent, in respect of this suicide (committed by his wife). In view of the all these facts, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent, in letter Ex.PWl/A, were false and false to the knowledge of the former (appellant). In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent referred to Kiran Mandal V/s. Mohint Mandal, 1989 M.L.J. 80, Vol. XIII, wherein the Hon ble Division Bench, held that false allegations by a wife against her husband that he had illicit relations with the wife of his brother amounted to cruelty against the husband and he was entitled to get divorce on this ground. XIII, wherein the Hon ble Division Bench, held that false allegations by a wife against her husband that he had illicit relations with the wife of his brother amounted to cruelty against the husband and he was entitled to get divorce on this ground. In Savita Chadha V/s. Ravinder Singh, 1986 M.L.J. 125 Vol.XI, also, it was held that making of false complaint to police by wife, amounts to cruelty. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon Radha Rani, V/s. Har Bhagwan, 2003(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 637, wherein it was held as follows:- "Initiation of legal proceedings for the redressal of the rights or for punishment to the wrong doer cannot be said to be acts of cruelty. No proceedings have been initiated against the wife to the effect that the prosecution by her was malicious. Similarly, because she was not able to prove her allegations beyond a reasonable doubt so as to warrant the conviction does not mean that the allegations have caused cruelty." 11. But, this judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case, wherein the appellant had not initiated any legal proceedings for the redressal of any right or for awarding punishment to the respondent. She, instead, chose to make reckless and false allegations, including those pertaining to the moral character, against the respondent, in the letter, copy Ex. PW1/A, sent by her, to his superiors in the department. Since she did not lead any evidence, during the trial, to prove the same, it is clear that the allegations were made by her, without any basis. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held her guilty of an act of cruelty towards the respondent and dissolved her marriage with him, on this ground. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The same are, therefore, upheld, and appeal is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.