Judgement BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th August 2002, passed by the District Judge, Raiganj, District Uttar Dinajpur, in Matrimonial Suit No. 59 of 1999, thereby dismissing the said suit. 2. The appellant before us filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 59 of 1999 in the Court of District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj thereby praying for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus : (a) The parties are Hindus and married according to the Hindu rites, ceremony and customs on 23rd November; 1995. After the solemnization of their marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife in the house of the husband in the District of Kishanganj (Bihar), and their marriage was consummated. (b) At the time of negotiation of the marriage, the respondent and his father and other relatives convinced the guardian of the appellant that the respondent had been serving as an Auditor engaged by Khaitan and Company and posted in Siliguri. They further disclosed that the respondent purchased homestead land in Siliguri in his own name and that Siliguri would be his main place of work. It was further given out that the respondent dealt with Income-tax and Sales-tax matters as an Advocate and had a public telephone booth at Kishanganj owned by him. It was further mentioned that he refused numerous number of offer of Government service and that he used to earn about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,000/- a month. After the marriage, the appellant and his family members came to know that they were defrauded by the misrepresentation of the respondent. (c) At the time of negotiation, it was also told by the father of the respondent and by the respondent himself that they had no greed for any dowry and as such, the guardian of the appellant believed in such representation. (d) Soon after the marriage, the appellant came to know that the respondent was not at all an Auditor and that he had no land in Siliguri or elsewhere nor had any public telephone booth at Kishanganj. At that time, it was detected that the respondent was addicted to drug and was not mentally fit. (d) Soon after the marriage, the appellant came to know that the respondent was not at all an Auditor and that he had no land in Siliguri or elsewhere nor had any public telephone booth at Kishanganj. At that time, it was detected that the respondent was addicted to drug and was not mentally fit. He often abused the parents and relatives of the appellant over telephone. (e) The mother-in-law of the appellant was a woman of greedy nature and on several occasions, demanded a huge sum of money from the father of the appellant on various pretexts. The father of the appellant was a poor schoolteacher and was unable to satisfy the demand made by the mother-in-law and the husband, as a result, they jointly tried to kill the appellant by putting kerosene oil and setting fire on her person. (f) The respondent made a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20th August, 1999 from the father of the appellant for the purpose of purchasing a piece of land at Kishanganj but the appellant expressed the inability of her father; consequently, the gravity of torture upon the appellant increased. On 24th June, 1999, the respondent brutally assaulted her for which she sustained severe injury on her person and she had been confined in a room. The appellant, however, managed to contact her parents on 3rd July, 1999 over telephone and on the next morning, the father of the appellant, the brother and other three persons rescued her from the matrimonial home. (g) On 30th August, 1999 at around 12.45 p.m. while the appellant returned from Raiganj University College, the respondent, all on a sudden, attacked and dashed her from behind with the help of a motor-cycle and tried to drag her against will in an indecent manner, as a result, the appellant lodged general diary on 21st August, 1999. 3. The suit was contested by the husband by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the defence may be summed up thus : (i) The parties were married on November 23, 1998 and the appellant came to the house of the respondent on 24th November, 1998, left for performing the Ashta-Mangala rites on 28th November, 1998, and returned on 30th November, 1998. (ii) Thereafter, both the parties led a normal conjugal life and consequently, the appellant conceived and she was under the check-up of Dr. T. K. Rajak attached to the Gujri Mata Memorial Medical College and Hospital, Kishanganj. On 5th July, 1999, the appellant was taken to Raiganj by her brother and later on, the respondent came to learn that the appellant without his knowledge and without obtaining his permission had terminated her pregnancy. The incident sent a shock wave throughout the family of the respondent. On receiving the information, the respondent immediately rushed to Raiganj on 30th August, 1999 to bring her back but all the family members misbehaved with the respondent and the respondent was shocked to find that the appellant had removed all the signs of a married woman. (iii) No explanation was given to him as to the manner and nature of termination of pregnancy. The brother of the respondent had gone to bring back the appellant but he was insulted and later on, the respondent realised that the appellant was not willing to return as the family members had planned termination of the pregnancy. (iv) The appellant was the only daughter of the parents and was highly pampered and as such, she had no independent opinion of her own and remained continuously under the clutches of her parents. (v) The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of District Judge, Purnea, which has been transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishanganj and the suit for divorce was filed after getting the notice of such proceedings. 4. At the time of hearing, the appellant and four other witnesses gave evidence in support of the case made out in the plaint while the respondent alone gave evidence in opposing the prayer. 5. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned herein dismissed the suit with the finding that the appellant had failed to prove the case of cruelty made out in the application. 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. 7. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended before us that the learned Trial Judge totally misread the evidence on record in arriving at the conclusion that the wife failed to prove cruelty. Mr. 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. 7. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended before us that the learned Trial Judge totally misread the evidence on record in arriving at the conclusion that the wife failed to prove cruelty. Mr. Roychowdhury points out that the evidence as regards the demand of dowry and the torture inflicted upon his client has been corroborated by her father but none from the family of the respondent denied such allegation. Mr. Roychowdhury further contends that in the written statement, the husband has made serious allegation of termination of pregnancy against his client but such allegation in this case has been proved to be a deliberately false one. According to Mr. Roychowdhury, if such allegation made in the written statement is found to be false, the Court should grant a decree for divorce simply for making such false allegation. Mr. Roychowdhury, therefore, prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and passing a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 8. Mr. Chandra, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has, however, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Roychowdhury and contended that in the facts of the present case, the learned Trial Judge rightly disbelieved the case of cruelty pleaded in the application for divorce. According to Mr. Chandra, even if the allegation of termination of pregnancy is not found to be proved such fact cannot confer right in favour of the appellant to get a decree for divorce if the ground pleaded in the application for divorce is not established. Mr. Chandra in this connection relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Debjani Sinha v. Bikash Chandra Sinha reported in 2006 (2) CHN 235 . Mr. Chandra further contends that even if the single instance of cruelty is proved, for such sole act of cruelty, no decree for divorce can be granted. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 9. Therefore, the first question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant had proved cruelty so as to get a decree for divorce. 10. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 9. Therefore, the first question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant had proved cruelty so as to get a decree for divorce. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record we find that the cruelty alleged was that the husband demanded money for purchasing a land and the wife having expressed the inability of her father, she was physically tortured by a belt and confined in a room. In the past, the husband was paid Rs. 40,000/- by three instalments. The wife from a public booth informed her father about the further demand and the consequential torture, as a result, the father of the wife along with her brother and some neighbour took away the wife on July 4, 1999 on the pretext of her mother's illness. To avoid unnecessary trouble, at that time, they did not altercate with them as regards the demand of money as the appellant disclosed over telephone that her life was in danger. The husband has denied such allegation and the learned Trial Judge has accepted the version of the husband. In our view, whether there was really demand of dowry could be answered by the members of the family of the husband because the marriage was a negotiated one and the husband was staying in a joint family consisting of his parents and other married brothers and their family. The allegation was not only against the husband but also against the parents of the husband. None of the members of the family of the husband has come forward to deny the demand of the dowry or the physical torture upon the wife for not complying with the demand of dowry. It is the specific case of the husband written in a letter to the Indian Democratic Mahila Samity (Exbt. 3), that his elder brother and his wife, the elder sister and her husband, the paternal uncle and maternal uncle with his wife went to the house of the appellant on various occasions to bring her back but none of them has been brought as witness. They could enlighten the real reason of the difference between the parties. 3), that his elder brother and his wife, the elder sister and her husband, the paternal uncle and maternal uncle with his wife went to the house of the appellant on various occasions to bring her back but none of them has been brought as witness. They could enlighten the real reason of the difference between the parties. The parents of the husband who stay in the same house have not come forward to deny the allegation of demand of dowry although specific allegation has been made against them. In such circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the appellant and her father on the allegations of demand of dowry and the torture. 11. The defence of the husband, on the other hand, is that the wife conceived and to get rid of such pregnancy, she went away and terminated the pregnancy against his will. An allegation of the husband that the wife against the wish of the husband and his family terminated a pregnancy is a serious one and such fact, if proved, is not only a crime but gives a stigma against the character of the wife. However, if such allegation is found to be a deliberate false one, in such a case, levelling of such an allegation against the wife in the written statement itself would afford a ground of divorce. We, therefore, proceed to examine whether such defence is a deliberate false one or not. We are quite conscious of the position of law that mere inability to prove such defence for want ofsufficient evidence will not afford a ground of divorce in favour of the other spouse but if the same is proved to be false, the other spouse may avail of such cruelty as a ground of divorce even if the allegation made in the petition for divorce is not proved. 12. In this case, the wife left the matrimonial home on July 4, 1999. On August 30, 1999, according to the wife, the husband dashed her with the motorcycle of his elder brother and tried to abduct her while she was coming from her college. 12. In this case, the wife left the matrimonial home on July 4, 1999. On August 30, 1999, according to the wife, the husband dashed her with the motorcycle of his elder brother and tried to abduct her while she was coming from her college. The husband has admitted that he went to the college of the wife but according to him, he wanted to talk to his wife and ask the reason why the pregnancy was terminated: The wife alleged that she never conceived, and the allegation of termination of pregnancy is a deliberate false one only to get rid of the charge of demand of dowry and inflicting torture. 13. We now propose to consider whether the husband has proved the allegation of pregnancy of his wife and to ascertain the time of commencement of the alleged pregnancy. 14. It appears that before filing of the present suit for divorce, the husband in the month of September 1999 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right and the plaint of such suit has been marked as Exhibit in this case. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint of the said suit would give an approximate time of commencement of pregnancy pleaded by the husband himself and those paragraphs are quoted below : "4. That the respondent for the first time left the petitioner on 28-11-93 in order to pay a visit to her parents to perform the rite of "Ashtamangala" and returned with the petitioner on 30-11-98 and thereafter she was passing happy conjugal life with the petitioner at the petitioner's house in Kishanganj. 5. That after a few weeks the respondent conceived and it was the time when the real trouble started. It will not be out of place to mention here that there is no baby child in the petitioner's family and the petitioner's parents were very happy on the news of forthcoming pregnancy. But the respondent went to her parents place and without consulting the petitioner or his parents and in connivance with her parents without petitioner's written or verbal permission got terminated the pregnancy. The respondent has severe thereby (smudged) shock to the petitioner and his parents tendering the father of the petitioner bedridden with heart attack which took months to recover from mental and physical agony." 15. The respondent has severe thereby (smudged) shock to the petitioner and his parents tendering the father of the petitioner bedridden with heart attack which took months to recover from mental and physical agony." 15. A plain reading of the aforesaid paragraphs would give an idea that the wife conceived within few weeks from the last part of the month of November 1998 and in that case, the wife was carrying at least seven months in the month of July 1999. The husband, however, in examination-in-chief stated that in the month of July 1999, the pregnancy was of about six weeks, which is inconsistent with the statements made in paragraphs 4 and 5 mentioned above. According to the written statement in this suit, after the pregnancy was detected, she was taken to Dr. Rajak. In cross-examination, he stated that while the wife was in his house, she was treated by Dr. T.K. Rajak, a general physician, who advised her for pathological test. According to him, he took step for pathological test but ultimately, the same was not done. He stated that he did not know what type of pathological test the doctor advised. Ultimately, he said that his wife told him that she had conceived and accordingly, he was confirmed that she was pregnant. Exbt. 3 is a letter written by the husband to the Mahila Samity complaining about the termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband. In such a letter, he alleged that his elder sister and her husband went to the house of the wife arid stayed one night when the wife told her that the unwanted pregnancy was the root of all trouble. Curiously enough, neither the said elder sister nor her husband was examined to prove such fact. Even the P.W. 3, on behalf of the Mahila Samity stated that they enquired and found the allegation to be false. We find that none Of the members of the family of the husband has come forward to prove the case of pregnancy of the wife. Even Dr. Rajak who allegedly advised pathological test was not examined to prove his allegation of pregnancy. In such circumstances, we are convinced that a deliberate false allegation has been made by the husband against the wife in order to overcome the allegation of demand of dowry and assault upon the wife. 16. Even Dr. Rajak who allegedly advised pathological test was not examined to prove his allegation of pregnancy. In such circumstances, we are convinced that a deliberate false allegation has been made by the husband against the wife in order to overcome the allegation of demand of dowry and assault upon the wife. 16. We, therefore, find that the wife has not only proved the case of demand of dowry and the consequent torture upon her but also proved that she was never pregnant and that a deliberate false statement has been made in the defence. We are satisfied that the allegation of termination of the pregnancy is disproved in this case. Therefore, in this case cruelty on both the grounds is proved. 17. The learned Trial Judge as it appears from the judgment impugned did not consider this aspect of the matter and believed the version of the husband without any sufficient reason. The learned Trial Judge ought to have drawn adverse inference against the husband for non-production of the relevant witnesses referred to by him. 18. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and grant a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appeal is, thus, allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 19. RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE, J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.