JUDGMENT Ms. Navita Singh, J.: - The present appeal was filed by appellant– Sangeeta against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 17.2.2000, whereby the marriage of the appellant with Rajinder Kumar– respondent was dissolved . 2. The appellant challenged the decree on the ground that desertion and cruelty, on which the petition for divorce was based, were not proved. The husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was later on withdrawn by him and then he filed petition for divorce. The Court below emphasised mainly on the fact that the appellant had got the family of the husband arrested for the offences punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code which amounted to cruelty. However, the grounds taken by the appellant for resisting the petition were not properly considered. 3. According to the averments of the husband in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 13.4.1993 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Rohtak. The marriage was consummated and a male child was born to them on 4.7.1994. The respondent- husband had alleged that on 19.12.1993, he was present at Shakur Basti Railway Station, Delhi with appellant Sangeeta and when the train was about to arrive, she slipped in the crowd stating that she had to go to the house of her uncle. She did so without the consent of the husband. On 16.6.1994, the wife had gone to Khurja along with her mother when she was pregnant. She traveled against medical advice and promised to return after one week but did not turn up. After waiting another week, the husband went to bring her back but her parents did not send her. The behaviour of the wife in the matrimonial home was also not good as she picked quarrel over every drop of a hat. She also did not do any work. 4. On 3.7.1994, a message was received by the husband from the family of his wife that his wife had given birth to a male child prematurely on which he went there with his parents but they were treated badly. 5. She also did not do any work. 4. On 3.7.1994, a message was received by the husband from the family of his wife that his wife had given birth to a male child prematurely on which he went there with his parents but they were treated badly. 5. In the month of May, 1995, a Panchayat was convened and it was found that the wife and her parents were at fault and she was to be present in the house of her maternal uncle on 2.6.1995 but she did not come. She rather filed the above-mentioned criminal case against the respondent and his family, after which he had withdrawn the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. The wife, however, denied all the allegations and stated that she had not gone to her uncle in Delhi nor she had gone with her mother as alleged. Rather, she was sent away by her husband to bring Rs.2 lacs from her parents. They also deprived her of the istridhan. 7. The allegations made and evidence produced, by the husband found favour with the trial Court and the petition for divorce was allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued here that a false allegation was levelled by the husband regarding appellant– Sangeeta having gone to her maternal uncle without the consent of the respondent because she could not have done so as the uncle Shri B.L. Manchanda had already passed away on 11.5.1993. Copy of death certificate which was referred to, is Ex.R1. Sanjay Kumar RW2 son of said B.L. Manchanda stated that Sangeeta had never visited his house after her marriage and had gone only once when his father had expired. 9. It, however, cannot be said that the averment of the husband is false merely because the uncle had already died, as appellant– Sangeeta may have made up a story for slipping away knowing that she had never visited her uncle with her husband who would not know anything about the position at that time. 10. The marriage was solemnised in 1993 and the appellant had parted company with the respondent in 1994, little after one year of the marriage. The decree was passed in the year 2000. 10. The marriage was solemnised in 1993 and the appellant had parted company with the respondent in 1994, little after one year of the marriage. The decree was passed in the year 2000. The parties having not lived together for so many years, it may not even be possible for them to live cordially under one roof specially when the husband sought divorce and got a decree in his favour making it clear that he did not want to live with appellant– Sangeeta. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the husband himself filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act and he had withdrawn the same later on and then filed petition for divorce after some time, showing that he was blowing hot and cold and was himself not sure whether he wanted the company of his wife or not. This argument will not find any favour with us because after the husband filed the said petition, the wife, i.e., appellant– Sangeeta got registered a criminal case against him under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code together with his family members and all of them were arrested. She was aware that Rajinder Kumar (now respondent) had moved the Court for seeking restitution of conjugal rights and despite that she filed the criminal case, rather showing that she herself was not interested in living with him because according to her, cruelty had been meted out to her. Since she involved Rajinder Kumar and his family on the criminal side, he rightly took back his petition under Section 9 of the Act as it would have been a futile exercise. Also he and his family members having been arrested at the instance of appellant– Sangeeta, the crack in the relationship became wider and Rajinder Kumar certainly was subjected to cruelty. 12. The appellant failed to prove that it was rather she, who was being treated cruelly and there was demand of dowry etc. whereas Rajinder Kumar (now respondent) was able to prove that the appellant– Sangeeta had deserted him and he had undergone mental cruelty at her hands. The trial Court rightly observed that certain things brought in evidence by the wife like her parents having spent Rs.3 lacs on marriage were missing in the pleadings and certain facts mentioned in the FIR also found no place in the written statement filed by the wife in the divorce petition. The trial Court rightly observed that certain things brought in evidence by the wife like her parents having spent Rs.3 lacs on marriage were missing in the pleadings and certain facts mentioned in the FIR also found no place in the written statement filed by the wife in the divorce petition. Since she was deviating from truth, there were contradictions in her pleadings and evidence when read together with the allegations in the First Information Report. 13. Appellant– Sangeeta also issued a legal notice dated 16.12.1995 (Ex.PD) to her husband and family members in which she had herself mentioned that it had become impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home. She, at that time, little realised that there would be a petition for divorce against her and the document Ex.PD could be used against her. 14. The trial Court rightly relied on judgment of this Court in case Girdhari Lal v. Santosh 1982 H.L.R. 97 and judgment of Kerala High Court in case P.K. Vijayappan Nair Vs. J Ammini, 1997(2) LJR 196, while holding that the present respondent and his family members having remained in custody on the complaint of the wife, were subjected to cruelty. The husband in such circumstances was entitled to a decree of divorce. 15. Finding no fault with the judgment and decree of the Court below, we hereby dismiss the appeal. ------------------