JUDGMENT : GULAM MINHAJUDDIN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act. 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 12th August. 2008 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. Raipur in Civil Suit No. 176-A/07, whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, has been rejected. Case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, is that marriage was solemnized on 10-11-1991 between the parties at Panchkula (Haryana) and thereafter, the parties resided together at Bilaspur. Korba, Shivpuri, Tikamgarh. Bhopal, Indore and after the formation of Chhattisgarh State, that the appellant was transferred to Raipur. Two children, Aman and Jasmine, were born out of their wedlock. Only after 15-20 days of the marriage, the respondent/wife started treating the appellant and his parents with cruelty and in a derogatory manner. The respondent demanded that the appellant should drive his mother out of the house and when the appellant refused to do so, the respondent started shouting loudly and torturing as well as harassing the appellant and his mother both mentally and physically. On account of this, the mother of the appellant left the house and his parents refused to reside with him so that his married life may be peaceful and he may not be harassed by the respondent. At each place of posting, the appellant was defamed and insulted before his colleagues, subordinates and general public, which adversely affected his personal, social and official life and has to face humiliation. The respondent used to intimidate the appellant and his parents that she will commit suicide and implicate them in a false case if they do not conduct themselves as she desires. When the appellant was posted as Collector and District Magistrate, Tikamgarh. in his absence she (respondent), with intent to commit suicide, had consumed huge quantity of sleeping pills, on account of which she was admitted in the hospital. The respondent's father, without ascertaining the truth, had complained to the Director General of Police. Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary that the Collector. Tikamgarh i.e. the appellant had given poison to his wife (respondent). However, on enquiry, the same was found to be false and on the contrary, it was found that in the absence of the appellant, the respondent herself had consumed sleeping pills. Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary that the Collector. Tikamgarh i.e. the appellant had given poison to his wife (respondent). However, on enquiry, the same was found to be false and on the contrary, it was found that in the absence of the appellant, the respondent herself had consumed sleeping pills. On account of the acts and interference of the respondent in the official work of the appellant, the appellant was humiliated and insulted before the subordinates, colleagues and the general public as the same used to be published in the newspapers. 2. When the appellant was fed up with the torture and harassment of the respondent, he filed an application in April, 1999 for judicial separation before the learned Second Additional District Judge. Tikamgarh and the same was withdrawn on 21-7-2000 in the interest of the children Aman and Jasmine, and on the respondent giving an undertaking that she will not repeat her acts in future and will behave in a proper manner. After this, the respondent alongwith her children returned back to live with the appellant. However, after some time again she started mentally and physically torturing and harassing the appellant. Even after transfer of the appellant to Raipur, the respondent continued torturing and harassing the appellant, on account of which he had to leave his official residence and is residing in a rented house. On these grounds, an application u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 was filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 3. The respondent, in her written statement, refuted all the allegations made against her and averred that she was mentally and physically harassed by the appellant and his parents in connection with demand of dowry. The appellant used to beat her after drinking liquor. The appellant had never been insulted or humiliated on account of any act of the respondent, but the appellant had always been in the news on account of his acts and misdeeds for which the respondent is not responsible. The respondent has never committed any mental or physical cruelty towards the appellant or his parents but on the contrary, the respondent had been treated with cruelty by the appellant and his parents. The appellant is residing separately of his own accord in a rented house. The respondents has always been and is still ready and willing to live with the appellant. 4. The appellant is residing separately of his own accord in a rented house. The respondents has always been and is still ready and willing to live with the appellant. 4. However, learned Family Court, after hearing the respective parties, considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment and decree rejected the application of the appellant/husband u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned judgment. 6. To substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the appellant/plaintiff, in addition to himself as PW-1. has examined Motilal and Pratap Singh Rawat as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. The respondent/defendant, on the other hand, in order to substantiate the averments made in the written statement, had examined herself and her father Major Dilip Singh Multani as DW-1 and DW-2. In addition to oral arguments, the parties have also filed documents in support of their cases. 7. It is not in dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10th November, 1991 and after that, they had resided together at Bilaspur. Korba, Shivpuri, Tikamgarh, Bhopal, Indore and after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh on 1-11-2000. that the appellant/husband was transferred to Raipur in the year 2001. It is also not in dispute that the parties are residing separately since about 2004. and while the respondent/wife is residing in the official accommodation allotted to the appellant, the appellant is residing separately in a rented house. 8. As per averments made in the plaint as well as the statement of the appellant, only after a short period of 15-20 days, the respondent/wife started behaving in a cruel manner with the appellant and his mother, and demanded that the appellant should drive his mother out of the house and on appellant's refusing to do so, the respondent started shouting loudly and treating him as well as his mother in a cruel manner. Thereafter, with intent to maintain the harmony of the house, the appellant's mother left the house and went away. 9. The appellant/plaintiff has further stated that up till now. during the course of service after marriage, he was posted at Bilaspur, Korba, Shivpuri, Tikamgarh. Bhopal, Indore, and then after that in the year 2001, he was transferred to Raipur. Thereafter, with intent to maintain the harmony of the house, the appellant's mother left the house and went away. 9. The appellant/plaintiff has further stated that up till now. during the course of service after marriage, he was posted at Bilaspur, Korba, Shivpuri, Tikamgarh. Bhopal, Indore, and then after that in the year 2001, he was transferred to Raipur. He has further stated that at every place of posting, the respondent/wife with intent and purpose to humiliate and insult him, treated him with cruelty and in a manner, which is unbecoming of the wife of an IAS officer, on account of which he was lowered down in the eyes of his colleagues, subordinates and general public, which adversely affected his personal, social and official life. 10. The appellant/plaintiff has averred in detail the sequence of events involving cruelty and torture on the part of the respondent/wife towards the appellant at every place of his posting and has also stated the same in his statement on oath. 11. The respondent/wife has refuted all the allegations made against her relating to cruelty and torture and has pleaded that immediately after marriage, the appellant/husband and his parents were harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of dowry. The appellant after drinking liquor used to beat her mercilessly. The respondent/ wife (DW-1) and her father Major Dilip Singh Multani (DW-2) have stated the same in their statements on oath. 12. First of all, it would be appropriate to see as to what extent some of the allegations relating to cruelty and torture on the part of the respondent/wife have been directly or indirectly admitted by her. 13. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has stated that when he was posted as District Magistrate and Collector. Tikamgarh, he had to go to Delhi in connection with some official work immediately before the festival of Holi and had to return back within a day. On that occasion, the respondent/wife insisted for going to Delhi alongwith him and when he refused and went away, his wife (respondent), in his absence, had consumed huge quantity of sleeping pills, on account of which she had to be admitted in the District Hospital. When the appellant returned back from Delhi, he was informed that his father-in-law Major Dilip Singh Multani (DW-2) had faxed a complaint to Director General of Police (M.P.) complaining that the Collector. When the appellant returned back from Delhi, he was informed that his father-in-law Major Dilip Singh Multani (DW-2) had faxed a complaint to Director General of Police (M.P.) complaining that the Collector. Tikamgarh i.e. appellant had administered poison to his wife (respondent). The appellant has further stated that his father-in-law had also submitted that complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, on which an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, who submitted his report dated 13-5-1999 to the effect that the respondent/wife in the absence of the appellant had herself consumed sleeping pills in a huge quantity. Further, the treating doctor has opined that it's a case of diazepam poisoning, and the acts and conduct of the respondent/wife were not of a normal person. The doctor has also opined that the respondent needs to be medically examined by a psychiatrist. Moreover, the respondent/wife has admitted that she had remained in District Hospital. Tikamgarh, from 2nd March, 1999 to 8th March, 1999 and her ailment was dignosed as diazepam poisoning, which is evident from the document Ex. D-71 (photocopy filed by respondent herself). The enquiry report submitted by the Addl. S.P., Hoshangabad has been tiled by the appellant/husband, which supports the statement of the appellant and the same has not been denied by the respondent. 14. From the above fact, it stands proved that during posting of the appellant as Collector, Tikamgarh, the respondent, in his absence, had consumed huge quantity of sleeping pills and father of the respondent Major Dilip Singh Multani (DW-2), without ascertaining the truth, had complained against his son-in-law (appellant) that he had administered poison to his wife (respondent) as on enquiry, the same was found to be false. The above mentioned acts of the respondent and her father definitely comes within the ambit and purview of cruelty, which they had committed towards appellant because certainly by such acts, the appellant, who was Collector, Tikamgarh at that time, must have to face insult and humiliation before the general public, besides his colleagues and subordinates. 15. It is not in dispute that after the incident at Hoshangabad of consuming heavy dose of sleeping pills by the respondent the respondent after recovery had gone to her parents' house at Panchkula (Haryana). 15. It is not in dispute that after the incident at Hoshangabad of consuming heavy dose of sleeping pills by the respondent the respondent after recovery had gone to her parents' house at Panchkula (Haryana). It is also not in dispute that after this incident of March, 1999, the appellant had filed an application u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 against the respondent for judicial separation, which on the application of the respondent/wife was transferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Court of Additional District Judge. Tis Hajari Adalat. New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that on 21-7-2000 a compromise cum-settlement deed was executed between the parties at Delhi in the presence of witnesses, one of them was Major Dilip Singh Multani father of the respondent. From perusal of paras 1 to 7 of the compromise-cum-settlement deed, it is clear that the first party therein i.e. respondent Dr. Mrs. Rosy Singh had agreed that she shall have no grievance against the second party (appellant) and his family and shall not enter into fights with the appellant nor shall she traumatize the appellant by her emotional outbursts. As such, from perusal of paras 1 to 7 of the said compromise-cum-settlement deed, it is clear that the respondent/wife was found at fault and had also agreed not to initiate or pursue any complaint case against the appellant or his family members. 16. The appellant/husband has averred in his plaint that the respondent/wife, in addition to treating the appellant and his parents with cruelty, was also interfering in his official work, which had adversely affected his official position. He has stated that during his posting at Tikamgarh as Collector, news was published in the daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar" dated 13-3-1999. Bhopal Edition, with regard 10 taking of bribe of Rs. 1.50 lacs by wife of the Collector i.e. respondent Mrs. Rosy Singh for opening of examination center at Village-Goa in District Tikamgarh. The appellant has filed cutting of the said newspaper, which has been marked as Ex. P/2. This fact has not been denied by the respondent/wife. She has stated that the said news is false and has termed it as gossip news. Rosy Singh for opening of examination center at Village-Goa in District Tikamgarh. The appellant has filed cutting of the said newspaper, which has been marked as Ex. P/2. This fact has not been denied by the respondent/wife. She has stated that the said news is false and has termed it as gossip news. The publication of such news, which has not been denied by the respondent/wife, points towards the fact that the conduct of the respondent/wife was not above board and she was interfering in the official work of the appellant, who was, at that time, posted at Tikamgarh as Collector, because without there being any substance, no newspaper will dare to publish a totally baseless and groundless news and that too pertaining to conduct of wife of a Collector. 17. The respondent/wife has admitted in her cross-examination (para-5) that she had levelled the charge against her husband (appellant) that on being transferred from Tikamgarh the appellant had taken away an antique from the Collector's bungalow. She has also admitted that the said charge was found to be false by the Hon'ble High Court of M.R. Jabalpur. Gwalior Bench. 18. The respondent/wife has stated that immediately after marriage, the appellant/ husband and his parents were treating her with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and the appellant after taking liquor used to beat her mercilessly. However, the respondent has admitted in para 2 of her cross examination that her husband (appellant) after taking loan from the State Bank of Indore. Hoshangabad had opened a dental clinic for her and the said loan was not repaid by her (respondent). She has also stated that it was her husband's (appellant) desire that she should run a dental clinic. Moreover, the appellant/husband has also stated in his statement in para 20 that looking to the desire of the respondent, he (appellant) had got her appointed in Dental College. The above fact has not been challenged by the respondent in the cross examination of the appellant. Therefore, it is not believable that a person, who is treating his wife with extreme cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, will get a loan sanctioned for her for starting a dental clinic and will take the liability of repaying the loan amount upon him. 19. Therefore, it is not believable that a person, who is treating his wife with extreme cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, will get a loan sanctioned for her for starting a dental clinic and will take the liability of repaying the loan amount upon him. 19. The respondent/wife has also admitted that she had lodged a report against her husband (appellant) and his parents in respect of offence u/s 498A of the IPC and has further stated that before lodging FIR, she had not disclosed the fact of being treated with cruelty by the appellant and his parents in connection with demand of dowry to anyone. Certificate copy of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur has been filed, by which the appellant was granted anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with offence u/s 498A of the IPC registered upon the report of the respondent/wife. Photocopy of certified copy of the order dated 15-5-2003 passed by the High Court of M.R. Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 171/03 u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has also been died, by which the proceedings initiated against the appellant with regard to taking away of antique from Collector's bungalow, Tikamgarh have been quashed. The abovementioned conduct of the respondent /wife also reflects her cruelty of an extreme degree towards her husband (appellant) and his parents. 20. In para-16, the appellant/husband has stated that on the day of Holi, the respondent had assaulted him with scissors, as a result, he sustained two scissors injury and haemorrhage in left eye. Further in para-18 he has stated that while he was in the room of the children, the respondent sat on his chest and assaulted him with the art of brass lying nearby. Seeing this, the children started crying and at that time, the servant present there also cried and somehow he (appellant) escaped from there. The above facts find corroboration from the statement on oath of Pratap Singh Rawat (PW-3), who was working as peon in the bungalow of the appellant at the relevant time. This witness PW-3 Pratap Singh Rawat has stated that on the day of Holi since the maid servant had not come, therefore, the respondent quarreled with the appellant and she was also trying to assault the appellant with scissors. This witness PW-3 Pratap Singh Rawat has stated that on the day of Holi since the maid servant had not come, therefore, the respondent quarreled with the appellant and she was also trying to assault the appellant with scissors. The respondent/wife has also admitted in her statement, in para-17, that whenever the maidservant did not come, she used to quarrel with the appellant as she had to incur extra burden. 21. The appellant has also stated in para 24 of his statement that while he was residing separately in a rented house, the respondent came there and broke the glasses of his vehicle as well as the house. She also assaulted him with a wooden plank having nails; as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The above facts stand corroborated from the statement of Motilal (PW-2), who was working as Security Guard in the house of the appellant at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar at the relevant time. 22. Thus, on close scrutiny of the evidence, documentary and oral, available on record, including the admission of the respondent/wife, it stands established beyond doubt that the respondent/wife has treated the appellant/husband with cruelty and the learned Family Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the appellant/husband u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 12th August, 2008 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 176-A/107 is hereby set aside. The appellant/husband is held entitled for a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 on the ground of cruelty by the respondent/wife. Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the parties on 10-11-1991 hereby stands dissolved. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) shall draw up a decree accordingly.