Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This order shall dispose of FAO Nos. 43-M and 44-M of 2007 both titled Bahadur Singh v. Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, as both these appeals have arisen out of common judgment. 2. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from FAO No. 43-M of 2007. 3. The appellant/husband by way of this appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide which petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been ordered to be dismissed, whereas the petition filed\by the respondent/wife under Section 9 of the Act stands allowed. 4. The appellant/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, whereas respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.4.1999 at village Fatehgarh, Tehsil and District Panchkula according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. Out of wedlock a female child namely Kuljit Kaur was born. Divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty by alleging : (i) That after few months of marriage due to excessive interference of the brother of the respondent, ASI Sahib Singh and paternal uncle retired DSP Balwant Singh alias Beant Singh, she harassed the appellant mentally by humiliating him; (ii) That the respondent openly misbehaved and quarrelled with him on petty matters and as and when his relatives came to meet him she refused to prepare tea for them and misbehaved with them and his family members in their presence. This act was said to Have caused great mental agony and cruelty to him; (iii) That the respondent refused to do household work and whenever asked to cook food she deliberately put more salt and chilly and used to either keep the food half cooked or spoil it by over heating. This act was said to Have caused great mental agony and cruelty to him; (iii) That the respondent refused to do household work and whenever asked to cook food she deliberately put more salt and chilly and used to either keep the food half cooked or spoil it by over heating. In spite of his advice she refused to mend her ways; (iv) That she used to go to her parental house without informing him and stay there for a number of days and would openly claim that she was sick of him and not interested in him; (v) That the respondent used to behave like a mentally sick person and used to start shouting and giving abuses to him, his friends and relatives and would start throwing articles on the floor or out of the house and also beat the child unnecessary which resulted in hypertension to the appellant (vi) That in the month of April 2002, the paternal uncle of the respondent/wife, namely Balwant Singh alias Beant Singh along with 15-16 police officials, Press Reporter and an Advocate visited his village. In the presence of panchayat where the respondent confessed that the appellant and his family members never misbehaved with her, yet her uncle and associates abused and threatened him; (vii) That on 5.9.2003 the appellant made a complaint to the President, Mahila Mandal, where the respondent was summoned wherein assurance was given by her but in spite of assurance the respondent did not change her behaviour. She continued to assault, humiliate and harass the appellant and his family members. She further threatened to involve them in false case. Another complaint was filed by him to the President, Mahila Mandal on 11.10.2003; (viii) That on 15.10.2003 he went to village Fatehgarh along with respondent due to untimely death of her brother namely Raghubir Singh where he was given severe beating by her family members. He was able to save himself only by running from the spot by leaving his scooter there. Because of the injuries he was medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Ambala on 17.10.2003 but thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the parties at village Fatehgarh, but despite that the respondent and her family members threatened to involve him in false case; (ix) that the efforts of reconciliation also failed. 6. Because of the injuries he was medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Ambala on 17.10.2003 but thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the parties at village Fatehgarh, but despite that the respondent and her family members threatened to involve him in false case; (ix) that the efforts of reconciliation also failed. 6. The petition was contested wherein preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the petition and rejection thereof on account of suppression of true and material facts. Allegations levelled were said to be false and fabricated. 7. On merit, each and every allegation was denied. However, she admitted that on 15.10.2003 the appellant had visited her village due to untimely death of her brother Raghubir Singh, but denied that he was given beating by her family members or that he had sustained injuries on account of alleged beating. It was pleaded that the appellant had consumed excessive liquor and had fallen from the scooter which resulted in injuries on his person, and that she and her family members, in fact, had taken him to hospital at Ambala. She, however, admitted that she had filed a complaint under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 IPC against the appellant and his family members which was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala, but she denied the convening of panchayat, or that any settlement had taken place between the parties. She also denied the visits of the appellant and her family members to take her back. 8. In the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act she levelled allegations of demand of dowry which could not be met by her. Plea that the appellant had fallen down after heavy drink from the scooter on 15.10.2003 was also pleaded. Petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant. 9. On the pleadings of the parties learned matrimonial Court framed the following issues :- " 1. Whether the petitioner Bahadur Singh is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground that he had been treated with utmost cruelty at the hands of the respondent ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent wife Smt.Jaswinder Kaur is entitled to decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the grounds alleged by her in the petition ? OPR 3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Relief. 10. OPP 2. Whether the respondent wife Smt.Jaswinder Kaur is entitled to decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the grounds alleged by her in the petition ? OPR 3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Relief. 10. In support of his case the appellant examined P.W.1 Ms.Manjit Kaur, Secretary Mahila Mandal, village Gardian, who proved application dated 5.9.2003 Ex.P.l and application dated 11.10.2003 Ex.P.2 given by the appellant to the President, Mahila Mandal. She also proved resolution of Mahila Mandal, Ex.P.3. However, in cross-examination she stated that Mahila Mandal never contacted the respondent. PW 2 Dr. V.K. Sharma, Ambala City was examined who testified that on 16.10.2003 he had examined Bahadur Singh at 2.10 PM and proved the injuries found on the person of the appellant and also the medico legal report Ex.P.4. PW 3 Dr. Harbans Kohli, Dental Surgeon, PMC, Siwan, deposed that he had examined the appellant on 17.10.2003 because of dental injury. He also proved the medico legal report and his opinion Ex.P.5. In cross-examination he stated that injuries could be caused only By scuffle or manhandling and not by fall. PW 4 Varinder Prabhakar, Criminal Ahlmad, proved the record pertaining to FIR No. 33 dated 9.4.2004 of P.S. Panjokhra, District Ambala registered under Sections 323/406/498-A/506 IPC against the appellant. The appellant appeared himself as PW 1. PW 6 Jagga Singh son of Ujagar Singh and PW 7 Tulsa Singh were also produced. Respondent examined RW 1 Om Pal who proved on record mutual settlement dated 17.10.2003 arrived at between the parties. Copy of merit is mark RA. Respondent appeared as RW 2. She also examined RW 3 Jaswinder Kaur wife of Gurmail Singh who was mediator in the marriage and RW 4 Balwant Singh son of Mehtab Singh, paternal uncle of the respondent. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were taken up together. 11. On appreciation of evidence learned matrimonial Court held that the allegations levelled by the appellant to allege cruelty were not corroborated by his witnesses. This finding was recorded for the reason that the appellant had not produced any relative or friend to prove the fact that the respondent refused to prepare tea for his relatives and friends. The learned matrimonial Court also held that no date, month or year was mentioned as to when she had refused to prepare the tea. This finding was recorded for the reason that the appellant had not produced any relative or friend to prove the fact that the respondent refused to prepare tea for his relatives and friends. The learned matrimonial Court also held that no date, month or year was mentioned as to when she had refused to prepare the tea. Similarly, allegations that the respondent did not cook food properly was also not supported by any of the witnesses, and the only witness PW 7 Tulsa Singh examined by the appellant could not point out as to when the respondent failed to serve tea to him. Rather in cross- examination, he admitted that he had once eaten food prepared by the respondent which was well cooked. Learned matrimonial Court did not find the allegations to be one which could be said to be causing cruelty. Similarly, the allegation that the respondent used to leave the matrimonial home without informing him and stay with her parents was not believed for want of material particulars. Evidence led by appellant was found to be contradictory. As regards the visit of the respondent and her family members in April, 2002, the learned matrimonial Court found that it was on account of allegations levelled by the respondent that the appellant had forcibly tried to administer poisonous, substance to her, therefore, justified. The learned matrimonial Court also did not find the evidence regarding report to Mahila Mandal to be convincing. The learned matrimonial Court held that applications Ex.P. 1 and P.2 were manipulated to create evidence because the President of Mahila Mandal was his near relative. 12. The learned matrimonial Court found that the assertions of the respondent that appellant was never maltreated, stood proved by PW 6 Jagga Singh who is his real maternal uncle. The learned matrimonial Court held that the factum of giving beating to respondent stood proved. In regard to the incident dated 15.10.2003, when the appellant was said to have been beaten, the Court held that though PW 3 stated that injuries suffered could only be the result of scuffle or manhandling, was not sufficient to blame the respondent, as it did not appeal to the reasoning of a prudent man that the petitioner could be beaten by family members of the respondent when he had gone to attend Bhog ceremony of her brother. 13. 13. The learned matrimonial Court found that there were other circumstances to disbelieve as the second application was given by the petitioner to Mahila Mandal Ex.P.2 dated 11.10.2003 i.e. after untimely death of brother of the respondent as the Bhog ceremony was on 15.10.2003. In spite of this he had gone to Bhog ceremony in normal way. The learned matrimonial Court held that even if it was accepted for the sake of arguments that brother and other family members of the respondent had beaten the petitioner it must be for some strong reason. However, respondent could not be blamed for it. 14. The learned matrimonial Court further held that this act of cruelty could not be attributed to the respondent, so as to enable appellant to get a decree of divorce, as neither in the pleadings nor in his affidavit he had shown the presence of the respondent. 15. Learned matrimonial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Zora Singh v. Gurmel Kaur, 1994(2) RRR 468 : 1994(2) Civil Court Cases 147 to hold that cruelty committed by the brothers of a wife or third party which are not shown to be at the instance of the respondent/wife cannot be attributed to the wife entitling the husband to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty. 16. Learned matrimonial Court also held that the appellant had tried to conceal true facts as he tried to prove on record copy of compromise dated 17.10.2003 said to have been entered into before panchayat which did not contain his signatures, whereas actual compromise deed Mark RA showed that it bore his signatures. Learned matrimonial Court, however, held that the evidence on record showed that the appellant had gone for dental examination, because in the compromise Mark-RA it was mentioned that the dispute between the parties stood settled. 17. It was also settled in the compromise that the appellant will not initiate any proceeding against Angrej Singh etc. The learned matrimonial Court held that compromise proved the altercation between the appellant and Angrej Singh, his brother-in-law had taken place but could not be said to be at the instance of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, could not be held responsible for it. Issue No. 1 was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. 18. The learned matrimonial Court held that compromise proved the altercation between the appellant and Angrej Singh, his brother-in-law had taken place but could not be said to be at the instance of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, could not be held responsible for it. Issue No. 1 was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. 18. The learned matrimonial Court further held that it was the appellant, who was guilty of marital dispute. While dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act, learned Matrimonial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act. 19. Mr. C.S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the judgment and decrees passed by the learned matrimonial Court cannot be sustained in law. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the allegations of cruelty stood proved by examining independent witnesses, and that the incident dated 15.10.2003 where the appellant was given beating by the family members of the respondent itself was sufficient to hold that the appellant was treated with cruelty. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the settlement arrived at between the parties at the police station on 17.10.2003 left no manner of doubt that the incident as alleged by the appellant had happened. Beating of the appellant by the relatives of respondent at her instance stood proved by leading evidence of the doctor who categorically stated that the injuries suffered by the appellant could not be suffered by fall as per stand of the respondent but could only be the result of scuffle or manhandling. 20. On consideration of matter, 1 find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though it cannot be disputed that the incident dated 15.10.2003 has occurred, but at the same time learned matrimonial Court was right in holding that no role was attributed to respondent in the said incident. 21. Subsequent compromise on record left no doubt that scuffle had occurred between the brother-in-law of the appellant and the appellant for the reasons which were not disclosed, but as per the compromise the respondent had agreed to join the matrimonial home meaning thereby that no role was attributed to the respondent in the said incident. The appellant had also undertaken not to initiate any action against his brother-in-law. 22. The appellant had also undertaken not to initiate any action against his brother-in-law. 22. Other allegations of cruelty by the appellant were too vague and did not stand proved by the evidence. The appellant could not claim a decree of divorce on the basis of allegations which are vague and lacked material particulars. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the registration of FIR Ex.P.6 under Sections 406/498-A/323/506 IPC itself amounts to cruelty because false allegations have been levelled in the complaint. This plea again deserves to be noticed to be rejected as the criminal case is still pending and it is yet to be determined whether the allegations are correct or false. Filing of complaint by a wife to redress her grievance cannot amount to cruelty. It is only false criminal prosecution which amounts to cruelty. There is nothing on record so far to show whether allegations are false or the complaint has been filed by respondent to redress her grievances. 24. Findings of the learned matrimonial Court referred to above are based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse or not capable of being arrived at on appreciation of evidence. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in these appeals which are ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.