Honble SHARMA, J.–Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated April 15, 1999 of the Judge Family Court No.1, Jaipur whereby petition filed under sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short `the Act) by the appellant husband against the respondent wife was dismissed. (2). The appellant husband pleaded in the petition that respondent wife was married to the appellant husband in the month of January,1991. The marriage got registered with the Registrar of Marriage Jaipur on April 16, 1991. Prior to the marriage with the appellant the respondent wife got married with Subodh Sood in 1980 and after divorce with him she again married to Ashok Kumar Bodhra on May 28, 1986 but this time also she was divorced. In October,1989 she came into contact with appellant and they decided to marry. Immediately after the marriage the respondent wife started beating to grand mother and mother of the appellant in order to oust them from the house. The respondent compelled the mother of appellant to commit suicide and FIR was registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri Jaipur. The respondent did not allow appellant to sleep with her. She was in the habit of remaining out of the appellants house for many days. She left the house of appellant in June,1992 and lodged a false case on the allegation of demanding dowry on June 30, 1992. But on September 25, 1992 she however joined the company of appellant. Again without informing the appellant the respondent left the house and thereafter on June 13, 1995 she took away all her materials, for which the report was lodged by mother of appellant on June 25, 1995 at Police Station Vidhayakpuri Jaipur. Therefore on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and fraudulent concealment of material facts of earlier marriages the appellant filed the petition. (3). The respondent wife filed reply to the petition and admitted about the marriages with Subodh Sood and Ashok Kumar Bodhra but she denied the allegation of cruel behaviour with mother and grand mother of the appellant. She made counter allegations against the appellant of beating her. She also denied facts pleaded in the petition and made request to dismiss the petition. (4). On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned Family Court framed four issues. The appellant himself appeared as witness and examined three witness in support of his case. She made counter allegations against the appellant of beating her. She also denied facts pleaded in the petition and made request to dismiss the petition. (4). On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned Family Court framed four issues. The appellant himself appeared as witness and examined three witness in support of his case. The respondent- wife on the other hand examined herself and one Sahsikant Maheshwari. Learned Family Court hearing the arguments dismissed the petition as indicated above. (5). Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned findings on the following grounds:- (i) The Family Court failed to consider the evidence of cruel behaviour of respondent relating to beating, abusing and manhandling with mother and grand mother of appellant. Lodging of false cases and withdrawing the same casually proves cruel treatment of the respondent. (ii) The Family Court has not considered the fact of concealment of earlier marriages by the respondent (iii) The Family Court has not considered properly the ground of desertion. (6). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and urged that the petition was rightly rejected by the Family Court. (7). Having pondered over the submissions and on scanning the record we notice that appellant Pradeep Sen (Pw.1) deposed that respondent used to beat his mother. Manjuri Sen (Pw.2), mother of the appellant in her deposition stated that the respondent used to spit over her and pushed her down. Testimony of Manjuri Sen got support from the statements of Sujata Das (Pw.3) and Mantosh Das (Pw.4). (8). Learned Family Court rejected the evidence of appellant on the ground that they were interested witnesses. Learned Family Court observed as under:- ^^izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;|fi izkFkhZ iznhi lsu] mldh ekrk eatwjh lsu ¼ih-M-2½ mldh cfgu lqtkrk nkl ¼ih-M-3½ ,oa Jh eurksk nkl ¼ih-M-4½ us vius c;kuksa esa vizkFkhZ;k }kjk Øwzjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj djuk crk;k gS ijUrq esjs fouez er esa bu xokgku ds dFku fgrc) xokgku ds dFkuksa ds vfrfjDr dqN ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj ;fn lkekU; nSfud thou esa dqN dgk lquh ifjokj ds chp esa gks x;h gS rks mls ,slh Øwjrk ugha ekuk tk ldrk ftls fookg fo?kVu dk vk/kkj ekuk tk ldsA--- We do not agree with this observation of learned Family Court. The instances cited by the appellant and his witnesses before the Family Court were such that destroyed the legitimate ends and objects of matrimony. The instances cited by the appellant and his witnesses before the Family Court were such that destroyed the legitimate ends and objects of matrimony. Behaviour of respondent wife was so grave that disturbed appellants mental happiness. The charge of legal cruelty had to be found out not from the fact on record but the Family Court ought to have inferred it from the effect on the mind of complaining spouse. Although the respondent in her statement made counter allegations against the appellant, we find the evidence of appellant more nearer to the truth in comparison to the evidence of the respondent wife. We are satisfied that the appellant has established that the behaviour of respondent wife was cruel to him and we decide issue of cruelty in favour of the appellant. (9). For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Judge Family Court No.1, Jaipur dated April 15, 1999. While allowing the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of appellant, we pass decree of divorce in favour of the appellant and dissolve the marriage solemnized on January 21, 1991. We also direct that the appellant shall regularly pay sum of Rs.1500/- per month to his daughter Himanshi. There shall be no order as to costs.