JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the petition filed by appellant-Sanjeev Kumar seeking dissolution of marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce has been dismissed. 2. The marriage of the parties was performed on 17.11.2003 at Kurukshetra according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a male child was born out of this wedlock on 7.3.2005. The appellant has complained against the conduct and behaviour of the respondent-wife inter alia levelling the following allegations:- 1. Refusal of the respondent to perform marital relations during their honeymoon to Goa on the pretext that she is in love with some other person. 2. Denial of sexual relationship for a period of two months after marriage. 3. The respondent abused the appellant and his parents. 4. Refusal to do any domestic work by saying that she is not a domestic servant. 5. Insistence of the respondent to live separately from his parents and threat to involve him and his family members in false dowry cases or to commit suicide. 6. Demand of the respondent to transfer his family property in her name after birth of their son and failure to do so inviting implication of the appellant and his family members in a dowry case. 7. On 24.4.2005, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with her minor son to an unknown place. 8. In May 2005, respondent left the house in the absence of the appellant and was found in the house of a boy, living alone in his house and the respondent disclosed that she had developed relations with that boy for the last 2/3 months. 9. The respondent left the matrimonial home in October, 2005 and refused to come back. 10.She lodged a false FIR for offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC in Police Station Sadar, Thanesar on 27.10.2007. 3. The appellant has sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4. The respondent filed reply controverting the allegations of the petition and raised a plea that behaviour of the appellant and his family members was rude, humiliating on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry and they demanded a car. The appellant is a computer engineer and is drawing a handsome salary. 4. The respondent filed reply controverting the allegations of the petition and raised a plea that behaviour of the appellant and his family members was rude, humiliating on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry and they demanded a car. The appellant is a computer engineer and is drawing a handsome salary. The son of the parties fell seriously ill but neither the appellant nor his family members came to see him. She was compelled to get a criminal case registered against the appellant and his family as she was subject to cruel treatment in connection with demand of dowry. 5. The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, if so to what effect? 2. Relief. 6. The appellant appeared in the witness box and examined his father Jagdish PW-2. 7. To rebut evidence of the appellant, the respondent examined herself and her mother Suresh Devi RW-2. 8. After having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the learned trial Court rejected the claim of the appellant for seeking divorce either on the ground of cruelty or desertion. 9. Feeling aggrieved against the verdict of the learned trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 10. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the respondent did not permit the appellant to have sexual relationship for a period of two months immediately after marriage, it caused mental stress rather shock to the appellant. The behaviour of the respondent was never cordial and submissive. She always created scenes on petty matters and extended threats to involve the appellant and his family members in false criminal cases and eventually lodged a false FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against him and his family members in October 2007. 11. The respondent developed illicit relationship with a boy at Jaipur and she had been living with that boy during absence of the appellant from Jaipur as well as when he was away from his house during his office hours. 12. Counsel for the respondent, while refuting the contentions of the appellant, submits that the appellant himself is a guilty spouse who has subjected the respondent to maltreatment, torture and humiliation on the ground of demand of dowry. 12. Counsel for the respondent, while refuting the contentions of the appellant, submits that the appellant himself is a guilty spouse who has subjected the respondent to maltreatment, torture and humiliation on the ground of demand of dowry. The appellant husband failed to discharge his obligation to provide peaceful and congenial atmosphere in the matrimonial home and the respondent is a victim of the same. She was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and lodge a criminal case. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. The appellant-husband has raised general and vague allegations in regard to the conduct and behaviour of the respondent by stating that she refused to do household work or threatened to implicate him and his family members in false dowry cases or to commit suicide. Any person can raise such like allegations but it is difficult to prove these allegations. The appellant has failed to lead any convincing evidence to substantiate his plea that behaviour of the respondent was not good much less cruel. It is difficult to believe that if the respondent did not permit her husband to have sexual relationship on the first night of marriage, the appellant would have taken his wife for honeymoon trip to Goa. Even otherwise, if the respondent did not want to have any marital/physical relationship with her husband during initial days of marriage, there was no possibility of her permitting the appellant to have sexual relation later. The fact that a son was born out this relationship of the parties, negates the plea of the appellant that the respondent did not permit him to have marital relations for a period of two months after marriage. This apart, as the parties cohabited with each other, after two months of marriage, any misconduct of the wife prior thereto stands condoned. 15. On a careful analysis of averments of the petition, it is clear that the only serious allegation set out by the appellant is that the respondent left the matrimonial home in May 2005 and she was found in the company of a boy, living alone in his house with whom the respondent purportedly developed illicit relations. The allegations of the appellant in this regard are vague and uncertain. There is no reference to the house number, locality much less the name of the boy in whose house the respondent was found. The allegations of the appellant in this regard are vague and uncertain. There is no reference to the house number, locality much less the name of the boy in whose house the respondent was found. Even otherwise, the story of the appellant that the respondent-wife disclosed to him that she had been maintaining relations with that boy for the last 2/3 months is highly unbelievable and improbable. If a wife does not lead a chaste life or secretly indulges in an extra marital relationship, she would be the last person to disclose her illegal conduct. It appears to us that as the respondent was never caught with a stranger in a place, the appellant was handicapped to disclose the particulars of that place and name of the person but still raised allegations assassinating the character of his wife to create a ground for divorce knowing fully well that his other allegations, even if accepted as correct, would not constitute cruelty to become a ground for divorce. The appellant has failed to plead much less prove any such allegation which can constitute cruelty of the nature and magnitude to become a ground for divorce. It further appears that as the respondent has lodged a criminal case against the appellant and his family members in October, 2007, the appellant filed the present petition in December 2008, to wreak vengeance or to create a defence in his favour. 16. The appellant has levelled serious allegations assassinating the character and fidelity of the respondent. She has set out a plea that she is a victim of lust for dowry. She has lodged a criminal case against her husband and other family members. The allegations of the husband with regard to relationship of the wife with a boy remains unsubstantiated. Even otherwise, had it been true that the respodnent developed liking for another person or she did not want to carry on relationship with her husband, the petition filed by the appellant would be a god gifted opportunity for her to get rid of this bondage and she would have readily agreed to dissolve the marriage. As the appellant has levelled unfounded allegations challenging the chastity of his wife, the respondent has every reason to stay away from the matrimonial home. The learned trial Court has recorded its finding after appreciation of the entire matter in its right perspective. As the appellant has levelled unfounded allegations challenging the chastity of his wife, the respondent has every reason to stay away from the matrimonial home. The learned trial Court has recorded its finding after appreciation of the entire matter in its right perspective. We find no error much illegality in the judgment of the trial Court as would call for interference. 17. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————