JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 9.9.2004 passed by the District Judge, Jalore, whereby the learned Judge had granted a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent-husband, Suresh Kumar. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant-Smt. Meena, and respondent-Suresh Kumar were married in 1993 according to Hindu rites and customs. According to the respondent, the appellant stayed with him for four months. During this period, she became pregnant. However, subsequently her behaviour with him, and his family, members changed. She not only refused to cook food, but also started misbehaving with the family members. On 29.8.1993, without informing him, or his family members, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parental place at Bhinmal. Despite the repeated efforts made by him. She refused to come back to the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Subsequently, she filed four different cases against the respondent-husband and his family members. Therefore, the respondent-husband moved a petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In order to buttress his case, the respondent-husband examined four witnesses. In turn, the appellant-wife also examined four witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence vide judgment dated 9.9.2004, the learned judge granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Pradeep Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended-that the appellant-wife was always willing to stay with the husband. However, according to her, she was maltreated because of lack of dowry. Hence, she has sufficient cause for staying away from the respondent-husband. Moreover, the husband cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own fault. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in granting the divorce in favour of the husband. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Narendra Thanvi, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband, has strenuously argued that the appellant has taken a self contradictory stand. On the one hand, she has claimed that she was maltreated by the husband and his family members, and yet on the other hand, she claimed that she is willing to reside with the same husband, who has subjected her to cruelty. Moreover, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the appellant had left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Moreover, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the appellant had left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Thus, the intention to desert is apparent. Furthermore, the appellant had falsely implicated the respondent-husband and his family members in criminal cases. But none of them have been convicted. Thus, such an act certainly amounts to "cruelty". Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in granting the divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned judgment and the record. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and record clearly reveal that the respondent had claimed that on 29.8.1993 i.e. just five months after the marriage, the appellant had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause. Moreover, in her testimony, the appellant had taken self-contradictory stand. On the one hand, she claims that she was subjected to cruelty, yet on the other hand, she claims that she is willing to stay with a cruel husband, and with cruel in-laws. The stand taken by the appellant is certainly not in-consonance with normal human conduct. Thus, it seems that she has taken the stand in order to merely prevent the husband from seeking a divorce. The learned Judge after meticulously examining the evidence, has rightly concluded that the appellant has no justifiable reason for staying away from the matrimonial home. Furthermore, the fact that she had filed a number of FIR against the respondent-husband and his family members. F.I.R's, which never culminated into a conviction, clearly amount to cruelty heaped by her upon the husband and his family members. The learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that the appellant had committed cruelty upon the respondent-husband. Hence, the learned Judge was justified in granting the divorce. 7. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. This appeal being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******