JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the wife, against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court below, accepting the husbands application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and passing a decree for dissolution of marriage, w.e.f. the date of decree. 2. Facts of the case are, that the husband filed the petition for divorce, alleging interalia, that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 28.2.2002, and that the real brother of the husband is married to the daughter of wifes uncle (Tau). It is then alleged, that the wife is of aggressive and irritative temperament, and gets annoyed on small things, and starts hurling abuses, and physically manhandles the husband. It is alleged that for the last oneyear the wife is calling names to the husband, like Impotent, and Eunuch, as husband has not been able to procreate a child, despite one and half year having elapsed since marriage, good counseling advanced by Babita did not yield any fruits, the wife called her father and wanted to go away with all belongings and valuables, which was opposed, but then on the same pretext of impotency she declined to stay back, and threatened, that more interference would result in launching prosecution by her. It is also alleged, that while going she proclaimed that she is possessing the academic qualification of M.Com., and by undertaking teaching job she would maintain herself, and all this is said to have resulted in cruelty to the husband. It is alleged that on 15.9.2004, when the husband was sitting on the shop, the wife, her father, and two more persons came, and hurled abuses, and gave physical beating to him, and he could be saved by the intervention of the neighbours. Interalia with these allegations the decree for dissolution of marriage was claimed. 3. The wife contested the petition, while admitting marriage it was pleaded, that the husband could never satisfy her matrimonial requirements, the allegation about her aggressive and irritative temperament was denied, the allegation of abuses, manhandling was also denied, and it was pleaded, that on the other hand husband and his family members behaved with her with cruelty, and gave beating. It was denied that she hurled any of the abuses like Impotent, and Eunuch, and that she did not think of conceiving child so early. It was denied that she hurled any of the abuses like Impotent, and Eunuch, and that she did not think of conceiving child so early. Regarding the incident of 12.9.2004, it was denied, and pleaded that it was on 19.9.2004, that the husband and his family members turned her out of the matrimonial home, raising a demand of motor cycle, and detained all dowry article, and for which the wife has already lodged prosecution, wherein the husband was arrested, and the goods were recovered. Then, incident of 15.9.2004 was also denied, and it was pleaded, that under the greed of further dowry the husband wants to contact another marriage, and that, the divorce petition has been filed to create defence in other litigation filed by the wife. 4. Material issue was only one, as to whether the wife has treated the husband with cruelty. 5. The learned trial court discussed the evidence of the parties, and found, that admittedly the wife has not conceived despite living in the in-laws house for 21/2 years, and that, though she has denied hurling abuses like Impotent and Eunuch, but then the evidence of the husband, and his witnesses, who are living there, does clearly prove, that on account of wife not conceiving, she started calling her like Impotent, and Eunuch, and that, even if there may be many reasons for her not conceiving, but then, this probability of her calling names like Impotent and Eunuch for not conceiving, cannot be ruled out. Then, relying upon a judgment of this Court, it was found, that hurling abuses by the wife to the husband does clearly constitute cruelty against husband. Then it was held, that the pleadings taken in para-2 of the written statement, about the husband having not satisfied her matrimonial needs, was admitted. Then, the evidence in this regard led by the husband was considered. Then, the evidence led on behalf of the wife was also considered, wherein the wife had deposed, that the husband and his family members started harassing her for dowry, and gave her beating. It was also considered, that she has admitted, that on her F.I.R., the police did not find the father, mother and elder brother of the husband, to be guilty, and even the complaint filed against them in the Court, was dismissed. It was also considered, that she has admitted, that on her F.I.R., the police did not find the father, mother and elder brother of the husband, to be guilty, and even the complaint filed against them in the Court, was dismissed. Thus, it was held that without any justified reasons the wife had levelled false allegations against the father, mother and brother of the husband, about harassing her on the ground of dowry. It was also considered, that the wife had deposed in the statement, that her husbands elder brother Mohan keeps an evil eye on her, and in her cross examination she has deposed, that she did not raise any grievance about it to Babita. She has also admitted, that Mohan never caught her hand, nor did any vulgar activity. However, he used to ask her to go on a long drive, but then, this fact was not deposed in her examination in chief. From this it is found, that the wife has levelled a false allegation, of husbands brother having an evil eye on her, which also amounts to cruelty. Then, various judgments have been relied upon, to find, that these acts do amount to cruelty. Then, the wife has also deposed, that the betrothal ceremony took place, 12 months before the marriage, and the date of marriage was fixed to be 25.4.2001, for which marriage place was booked, but the inlaws demanded, that the shop situated on Jail Road in the name of wifes father should be given to the husband, then only they would marry, and thereupon the marriage was postponed, and it was under this pressure, that her father had to give shop at loss, and thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on 28.2.2002. Then, in cross examination it is deposed, that the shop was got registered for a consideration of Rs. 7 lacks, while it was worth Rs. 13 lacks, and this story was sought to be corroborated by N.A.W. 2 Saroj, the mother of the wife, and N.A.W. 3 Sripal but then, they could not stand in cross-examination. Then, appreciating the entire material, it was found, that he has admitted, that he has not made any reference for giving the shop in his income tax return, and that, he has also admitted that no registry was executed. Thus, this allegation was also found to have been falsely leveled, which amounted to cruelty. Then, appreciating the entire material, it was found, that he has admitted, that he has not made any reference for giving the shop in his income tax return, and that, he has also admitted that no registry was executed. Thus, this allegation was also found to have been falsely leveled, which amounted to cruelty. Then, the allegation of demand of motorcycle was also considered, and it was found, that the challan has not been filed against the other persons, and even protest petition has been dismissed, and only against the husband, challan has been filed. Then, considering all these circumstances, cumulatively, it has been found, that the husband has established, that the wife has treated him with cruelty. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment long drawn submissions were made, on all self assumed hypothesis, like arguing, that the husband is member of Joint Hindu Family, and it is too much to believe, or even expect, that Hindu newly married bride would hurl abuses like Impotent, or Eunuch, to the husband, in the house, or would manhandle him. According to him, for the ladies such an act is unconceivable, and this submission was repeated from various standpoints. It was also submitted, that no details have been given, as to how and when the incidents, as alleged by the husband did take place. It was then submitted, that in the ordinary course of things, if any of such activities were committed by the wife, the husband would have immediately rushed to the father of the wife, or the mediators, who were instrumental in arranging the marriage, or the respectable persons of the locality, but nothing of that sort has been done, which also shows that the story propounded by the husband is absolutely unreliable. Then, the over all sequence of events was also highlighted, by contending, that if wife were to hurl such abuses, there were no occasion for her to leave matrimonial home, rather the husband would turn her out, and that, even if she has gone, as alleged, then too the matter ended there, and there was no occasion for committing the incident of 15th April, and on that occasion again wife going there, and again hurling abuses. It was then submitted, that the learned trial court was in error in finding cruelty, on account of the statements given by the wife during trial. It was then submitted, that the learned trial court was in error in finding cruelty, on account of the statements given by the wife during trial. According to the learned counsel, no allegation finds place in the divorce petition, and the appellant had no opportunity to defend herself, if they were desired to be used against her. The other limb of argument is, that in any case, unless the allegation levelled by the wife, in her evidence, during trial, are established by the husband to be false, it cannot be said, that they amount to cruelty. It is submitted, that may be that F.R. was given in favour of family members, but then that is not the end of the matter, and in any case, charge sheet has been filed against the husband, which prima facie shows that he is guilty, and if he is guilty of the matrimonial offence of dowry, then by virtue of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, he cannot himself take benefit of his own fault, and claim a decree for divorce. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Naval Kishore Somani v. Poonam Somani, reported in 1(1999) DMC-415 , and on a judgment of this Court, in Smt. Kallawati v. Likhman Ram, reported in 1996 WLC (Raj.) UC-736. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment, and read the statement of the wife, to show, that the findings recorded by the learned trial court do not at all suffer from any error. It was submitted, that the wife had clearly admitted, that the husband was not able to give her full satisfaction of her matrimonial rights, and according to the learned counsel, that itself is a million dollar circumstance, to show, that in all probabilities she must have behaved in the manner as alleged by the husband, and bald denial on the part of the wife has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court. Learned counsel relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court, in Omprakash v. Smt. Shakuntala, reported in 1980 RLW-388 , Sumitra v. Luna Ram, reported in 2007(2) RLW-958 , and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in 2007(2) RLW-1357. 8. Learned counsel relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court, in Omprakash v. Smt. Shakuntala, reported in 1980 RLW-388 , Sumitra v. Luna Ram, reported in 2007(2) RLW-958 , and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in 2007(2) RLW-1357. 8. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the impugned judgment, and the evidence read to me by the learned counsel for either side. 9. First of all I may take up the submissions made, about inherent unreliability of the proposition propounded by the husband, and the inherent improbability of any such conduct, on the part of the wife. In this regard, instead of observing anything here and there, I may straight-way refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in reported in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC-1534 , wherein the allegation of cruelty on the part of the wife, interalia comprised of allegations, to the effect, "that the wife indulged in every sort of harassment, and would blurt out anything that came to her mind; one day while a student of the appellant was sitting in the outer room she shouted "You are not a man at all", and in the heat of anger she used to say "that she would pour kerosene on her body and would set fire to herself and the house. She used to lock out the appellant when he was due to return from the office. On four or five occasions he had to go back to the office without taking any food", and so on, and Hon'ble the Supreme Court noticed, that the finding of the High Court, to the effect, that "the respondent could not have addressed in vacuum, every abuse, insult, remark or retort, must have been probably in exchange for remarks and rebukes from the husband. The court is bound to consider the probabilities and infer, as I have done, that they must have been in the context of the abuses, insults, rebukes and remarks made by the husband....." Then, in para-32 it was held as under:- "32. The court is bound to consider the probabilities and infer, as I have done, that they must have been in the context of the abuses, insults, rebukes and remarks made by the husband....." Then, in para-32 it was held as under:- "32. One other matter which needs to be clarified is that though under section 10(1) (b), the apprehension of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other party has to be reasonable, it is wrong, except in the context of such apprehension, to import the concept of a reasonable man as known to the law of negligence for judging of matrimonial relations. Spouses are undoubtedly supposed and expected to conduct their joint venture as best as they might but it is no function of a court inquiring into a charge of cruelty to philosophise on the modalities of married life. Some one may want to keep late hours to finish the day's work and some one may want to get up early for a morning round of golf. The court cannot apply to the habits or hobbies of these the test whether a reasonable man situated similarly will behave in a similar fashion. "The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances." American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn., Vol.24, p.206. The Court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to drown their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures. As said by Lord Reid in his speech in Gollins v. Gollins (1963) 2 All ER 966 : "In matrimonial cases we are not concerned with the reasonable man, as we are in cases of negligence. We are dealing with this man and this woman and the fewer a priori assumptions we make about them the better. In cruelty cases one can hardly ever even start with a presumption that the parties are reasonable people, because it is hard to imagine any cruelty case ever arising if both the spouses think and behave as reasonable people." 10. Then, in para-33 it was held, that the Court must, therefore, try and understand this husband, and this wife, as the nature has made them, and as they have shaped them lives. 11. In that view of the matter, it is not open to me to travel in the realm of conjectures, invoking the desired commonsense, or general knowledge, or common experience, to conclude inherent unreliability, or inherent improbability, in the allegations made by the husband. Then, if the evidence of the parties is read, the types of arguments that were made, any of such things have not at all been suggested to the witnesses of the husband, or the husband himself, for eliciting the answer to the version sought to be advanced. In that view of the matter, the matter was, and is, required to be considered on the basis of appreciation of evidence, as it exists on record. 12. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence of the parties, threadbare, and no misreading of any part of the evidence, nor any misinterpretation thereof, has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to require me to appreciate the evidence over again. Obviously, therefore, the appreciation made by the learned trial court does not require any interference. Obviously, therefore, the appreciation made by the learned trial court does not require any interference. Then, so far her conduct in leaving matrimonial home, and again committing the incident of 15th April, is concerned, there is nothing unnatural, or abnormal in it, human psychology is a very complex phenomenon, and one does not know, as to at what point of time, and in what given circumstance, in what manner, any one particular individual would behave. Expectation of any such behavior on the parameters of normal and ideal person would, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dastane's case, again would be erroneous. Therefore, what is required to be seen is, as to whether the incident did take place, or not, instead of going into hypothesis as to why all this would have been done. Again in this regard learned trial court has appreciated the evidence, and learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any misreading or misinterpretation of any part of the evidence, and therefore, this part of the evidence also does not require any interference. 13. Then, coming to the submission about the constituents of cruelty, the constituents relied upon by the learned trial court, comprised in the deposition of the wife, which do not find place in the divorce petition, and the wife having got no opportunity to defend herself against that. In my view leaving apart anything-else, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, in Naval Kishore Somani's case, itself is a complete answer to the contention, wherein in para-8, it has been held as under:- "........As far as this Court is concerned, it has to be held as the settled legal position that the allegations made for the first time in the counter/ written statement, by the respondent can be foundation for granting a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner, if those allegations are found to be false and baseless. This is irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has failed to establish any of the charges made by him on ground of 'cruelty' against the respondent..." 14. This is irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has failed to establish any of the charges made by him on ground of 'cruelty' against the respondent..." 14. Thus, if this legal principle is properly appreciated, and considered, it is clear, that allegations made by the wife during trial, which are found to be false, then even if the husband has failed to establish the allegations in the divorce petition, decree for divorce can be granted, if any matrimonial offence is made out by the act of making allegation by the wife. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, and all that is required to be seen is, as to whether the allegations made by the wife are false, and baseless. It is again a different story, that in Omprakash's case, in para-17, this Court has held, that even if no issue has been framed, regarding any particular averment, constituting cruelty, the decree for divorce can be granted, even if they are withdrawn, or they are given up. In the present case, a look at the judgment of learned trial court shows, that various allegations had been made by the wife, against the husband, his elder brother, his parents etc., and even prosecution had been lodged against them, wherein negative final report was given against family members of the husband. Learned counsel has submitted, that unless those allegations are found to be false, cruelty cannot be said to be made out, but then the learned counsel appears to have not noticed the findings, recorded by the learned trial court, with respect to each allegations, wherein it has been found, that allegations are false, afterthought, concocted, and made for ulterior purpose, and therefore, it was found that they constitute cruelty. In my view, the appellant did level the allegations, and even herself did not substantiate them. Obviously, the learned trial court has rightly found, that the allegations had been falsely made. Thus, on the face of this finding, that the allegations have been falsely made, in my view, there can be no dispute about the proposition, that such an act would amount to mental cruelty. Obviously, the learned trial court has rightly found, that the allegations had been falsely made. Thus, on the face of this finding, that the allegations have been falsely made, in my view, there can be no dispute about the proposition, that such an act would amount to mental cruelty. I may in this regard again rely upon the judgment of this Court, in Omprakash's case, Parihar(Priti) v. Parihar (Kailash Singh) reported in AIR 1978 Raj.-140 , Sumitra's case, Madhu Pareek v. Mahesh Kumar reported in 2007(1) DNJ (Raj.)-476 , so also on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh's case, and Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, reported in (2006) 4 SCC-558 , in addition to the weighty observations made, and parameters laid down, by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dastane's case. Therefore, this contention also has no substance. 15. Then, I take up the submissions made on the anvil of Section 23(1)(a). Suffice it to say, that it is not clear, as to how the husband is taking advantage of his own wrong. The divorce petition has been filed on the ground of cruelty, and it is established on record, that wife had been treating him with cruelty. Simply because, it is alleged by the wife, that the husband committed a dowry related offence, and therein the charge-sheet has been filed, it cannot be said, that the husband is taking advantage of any of his own wrong. In the scheme of things, the wrong contemplated, comprehends the matrimonial offence. Obviously, rendering the wrong doer to suffer consequence of matrimonial offence, but then, the offence, for which the husband is being prosecuted, is a penal offence, and is not shown to be any matrimonial offence. In such circumstances, in my view, reference to Section 23(1) (a), is no better than misplaced. 16. Thus considering the case from any standpoint, I do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******