JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Smt. Yogita, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2008 passed by District Judge Sirohi, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent, Ramesh Singh, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and has granted a decree of divorce in his favour. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-wife was married to the respondent-husband on 22.02.1999 at Sirohi according to the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a son, Mitesh, was born. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of appellant-wife. According to the respondent, the spouses were having good terms for the first two years of the marriage. But thereafter, the appellant wife kept on pressurising the respondent to leave his parents and to shift to Sirohi. She even left the house of respondent-husband without informing him. She started living at Sirohi without any rhyme or reason. After some persuasion, she was brought back only for few days. But again she went back to Sirohi. She kept on pressurising the respondent husband to get himself transferred to Sirohi. Although the appellant did not want to leave his widowed mother and a son from his earlier wife, even then he got himself transferred to Sirohi. He remained at Sirohi for about six-seven months in a rented premises. But even then the appellant-wife did not come to him and did not fulfill her conjugal responsibilities. The respondent further averred that his mother died on 12.07.2003. Although the appellant wife came to Abu Road, but she did not bring their son Mitesh from Sirohi. She returned back to Sirohi after twelve days. Ultimately, the respondent-husband sent a legal notice through his counsel for restitution of conjugal rights. In retaliation whereof, the appellant-wife lodged a report against respondent-husband for offences under Sections 498A, 307 IPC the very next day on 29.10.2003 with the allegation of demand of dowry against respondent-husband and attempt to commit murder by burning. In the said case, after complete trial, the respondent husband was acquitted on 26.06.2004. Thus, the divorce petition was filed on the ground of cruelty. 3. In reply to the said petition, the appellant wife denied the averments made by respondent-husband. In the said case, after complete trial, the respondent husband was acquitted on 26.06.2004. Thus, the divorce petition was filed on the ground of cruelty. 3. In reply to the said petition, the appellant wife denied the averments made by respondent-husband. She averred that she never compelled the respondent-husband to come and live at Sirohi. Rather, it was alleged that the respondent used to beat and treat her with cruelty to fulfill a demand of rupees two lacs as dowry. It was further averred in the reply that since she was pregnant, she was having no other option but to live with her parents. She further took the stand that she always behaved well, but on 29.03.2003 while she was preparing tea in the kitchen, the respondent threw kerosene on her and burned her. Consequently, she received severe burn injuries over her body. Thus, a criminal case was lodged. She showed her willingness to live with the respondent-husband and of fulfilling the conjugal obligations. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Court below framed three issues. In order to support his case the respondent husband examined two witnesses and produced fifteen documents. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Court allowed the petition vide judgment dated 21.04.2008 and passed a decree of divorce. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 5. Mr. P.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has erred in accepting the ground of cruelty against the appellant. According to him, the respondent husband has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in granting divorce on the said ground. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K.L. Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that according to the respondent husband, the wife did not cohabit with him, did not fulfill the matrimonial obligations, and most importantly lodged a criminal case for offences under Section 498A, 307 IPC. In the said case, the respondent husband was acquitted. Thus, the wife lodged a false and frivolous case against him. Such allegations do fall within the scope of "mental cruelty". Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the divorce on the said ground. Hence, he has supported the impugned order. 7. In the said case, the respondent husband was acquitted. Thus, the wife lodged a false and frivolous case against him. Such allegations do fall within the scope of "mental cruelty". Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the divorce on the said ground. Hence, he has supported the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned judgment. 8. The respondent husband had filed the petition on the ground of cruelty. He had pleaded that while he was staying at different places, the appellant wife did not come and cohabit with him. Moreover, whenever she stayed with him, it was too short a time. During the period of her stay, she did not fulfill the duties as a wife. More importantly, according to him, she had filed a false case under Sections 498A, 307 IPC. The fact that he had been falsely implicated in a criminal case, the fact that frivolous allegations were levelled against him, according to the learned Judge, do fall within the definition of word "cruelty". In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that in case frivolous and false allegations are levelled by erring spouse against the other spouse, then cruelty is writ large. Even in the present case, admittedly, the respondent husband has been acquitted of offences under Section 498A, 307 IPC. Thus, obviously, false and frivolous allegations were levelled against him. Hence, the factum of cruelty is well proven. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the divorce on the ground of cruelty. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment.This appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******