JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This FAQ (HMA) is directed against the judgment, dated 01.06.2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in HMA Petition No. 95 of 2009. 2.‘Key facts’ necessary for adjudication of this FAQ, are that the marriage between appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’ for the sake of convenience) and respondent was solemnized on 09.05.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs in village Baldwara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The parties started residing together as husband and wife in village Jajri, Tappa Dhatwal, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. Two children were born out of this wedlock. According to the petitioner, the behavior of respondent towards him was indifferent. A case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him, his parents and sister at the instance of the respondent. They were arrested. However, the case was dismissed on the basis of a compromise. The petitioner took the respondent to Darjling in 2008. In April, 2009, at Darjling, she sprinkled kerosene oil on her. On 22.09.2009, the respondent threatened to kill the petitioner. Thus, it was not possible for the parties to live together as husband and wife. 3. The respondent has filed a detailed reply. According to her, she was treated with cruelty. She was tortured, maltreated and humiliated by the petitioner. She was deprived of food, clothing and all other necessities of day-today life. She was forced to sign divorce papers. She was forced to leave her matrimonial house without any rhyme or reason. She has approached the Panchayat and police against the behavior of petitioner and his family members. According to her, her father has deposited a sum of ‘40,000/- on 07.05.2005 in the H.P. State Cooperative Bank, Baldwara in her account. However, after marriage, she was forced to withdraw the amount and the same was given to the petitioner. A local Panchayat was also convened on 12.04.2006. The petitioner has agreed not to insult her. However, the petitioner and his family members did not stop maltreating her. Thereafter, her father reported the matter to Incharge, Police Post, Deotsidh. The matter was compromised. She has denied that she had threatened to commit suicide at Darjling in order to involve the petitioner in a false case. She has denied that she has ever threatened the appellant with knife on 22.09.2009. 4. Learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. framed the issues. Thereafter, her father reported the matter to Incharge, Police Post, Deotsidh. The matter was compromised. She has denied that she had threatened to commit suicide at Darjling in order to involve the petitioner in a false case. She has denied that she has ever threatened the appellant with knife on 22.09.2009. 4. Learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. framed the issues. The petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur on 01.06.2012. 5. Mr. Rakesh Chandel, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Court below has mis­read and mis-construed the oral as well as documentary evidence. He then contended that the marriage between the parties has completely broken down and cannot be revived. He also argued that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty. 6. Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned vice counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment, dated 01.06.2012. 7.The appellant has appeared as PW- 1. According to him, the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 09.05.2005. The respondent used to abuse him and his family members. In the year 2008, he took the respondent to his place of posting at Darjling. She tried to set herself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil on her in order to involve the petitioner in a false case. According to him, on 22.09.2009, the respondent attacked him with a knife. 8. PW-2, Mukhtiar Singh, has supported the version of appellant. PW-3, Shri Bipan Kumar, has deposed that in his presence, the parties have entered into a compromise Ex. PW1/A. He signed the same alongwith Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Jajri and others. 9. PW-4, Shri Bakshi Ram, has deposed that he knew the parties. According to him, the respondent used to quarrel with her in laws. She was not interested to live in the house of her in laws. He was called by the petitioner when a quarrel was going on between the parties last year and then he and Mukhtiar Singh (PW-2) visited the house of the petitioner. 10.According to the respondent, the petitioner and his family members started torturing her for bringing insufficient dowry. She was forced to withdraw the amount from the bank. She withdrew the amount and handed over the same to the petitioner. She was not provided any medical aid. She has reported the matter to the Panchayat and a compromise Ex. PW1 /A was arrived at between the parties. She was forced to withdraw the amount from the bank. She withdrew the amount and handed over the same to the petitioner. She was not provided any medical aid. She has reported the matter to the Panchayat and a compromise Ex. PW1 /A was arrived at between the parties. She was forced to bring more money from her father. The matter was also reported to the police and a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. The matter was settled amicably vide Mark-B. The matter was also reported to Police Station, Barsar. The challan was filed. However, the matter was compromised between the parties hoping that the respondent will not be tortured by the appellant and his family members. She went to the house of the petitioner, but the petitioner and his family members started threatening her. She was forced to leave the house of the petitioner. She was residing in the house of her parents. She was not paid any maintenance. She has also filed a petition for maintenance in the Court. Again the matter was compromised vide Ex. R/ 1. She has denied the suggestion that a sum of ‘40,000/- was not handed over by her to the petitioner. She has denied that she has quarreled with the petitioner at Darjling. She has also denied that she has sprinkled kerosene oil on her to set herself on fire. She has admitted that she had lodged FIR against the petitioner and his family members under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. RW-2 Giano Devi, RW-3 Devi Ram and RW-4 Kashmir Singh have supported the version of RW- 1. RW-2, Giano Devi, the then Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Baldwara, has deposed that a complaint was made by the respondent to her against her husband and his family members. She has got the matter compromised. She also stated that in the same year, she also received another complaint from the respondent regarding beatings given to her by the petitioner and his family members. The matter was reported at Police Post Deotsidh. She identified her signatures on compromise Ex. PW 1/A. 11.RW-3, Sh. Devi Ram, has supported the version of respondent in its entirety. RW-4, Kashmir Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Baldwara has supported the version of RW-2 and RW-3 12. The matter was reported at Police Post Deotsidh. She identified her signatures on compromise Ex. PW 1/A. 11.RW-3, Sh. Devi Ram, has supported the version of respondent in its entirety. RW-4, Kashmir Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Baldwara has supported the version of RW-2 and RW-3 12. The petitioner has not produced any close relation of his family to support the averments contained in the petition. He has also not made any complaint at Darjling about the attempt made by the respondent to set herself on fire. He has not reported the matter to the Panchayat or the police of the alleged incident of being threatened by respondent with knife on 22.02.2009. 13.The statements of PW-2, Sh. Mukhtiar Singh and PW­3, Shri Bipan Kumar do not inspire any confidence. PW-2, Sh. Mukhtiar Singh belongs to a different village and PW-3, Shri Bipan Kumar has deposed only about the compromise Ex. PW1/A. It is also difficult to believe that in the presence of PW-2, Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, the wife could have taken knife to attack the petitioner in order to kill him. 14.The matter was reported by the respondent to Gram Panchayat Baldwara and the agreement Ex. PW1/A was entered into between the parties on 12.04.2006. She has to approach the Panchayat since she was tortured by the petitioner and the members of his family. The petitioner has undertaken to provide a separate accommodation to the petitioner and not to subject her any mental or physical harassment. A second agreement was entered into between the parties on 15.04.2007 vide Ex. PW1/B in the presence of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Jajri and others. On this occasion, the complaint was made by Shri Devi Ram, father of the respondent. It was agreed between the parties that the respondent will be provided a separate accommodation from her in-laws and the petitioner will keep her with him at the place of his posting. The respondent was also constrained to file a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C., seeking maintenance in the Court of ACJM, Sarkaghat. The same was also withdrawn on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. A case was also registered against the petitioner and his family members in Police Station, Barsar under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The same was also withdrawn after the matter was compromised vide order, dated 18.03.2009 Ex. P1. The same was also withdrawn on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. A case was also registered against the petitioner and his family members in Police Station, Barsar under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The same was also withdrawn after the matter was compromised vide order, dated 18.03.2009 Ex. P1. 15.It is duly established that the steps were taken by the respondent and her father when she was maltreated and not provided basic necessities of life. She was forced to live with her parents. She has not been provided maintenance as and when she approached the authorities concerned. The matter was compromised. However, the terms and conditions of the compromise were not adheared to. The petitioner has not proved the incident which has happened at Darjling and also the alleged attempt to kill him with a knife on 22.09.2009. The Court has noticed that the petitioner has not approached the police about the alleged incident, dated 22.09.2009 nor about the incident which has happened at Darjling. The petitioner has not produced any witness from Darjling to prove that the respondent has sprinkled kerosene oil on herself to set herself on fire to harass him. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs. The petitioner has maltreated and subjected the respondent with cruelty. The petition was filed by the petitioner only to get rid of the respondent. The petitioner has failed to prove the case against the respondent. 16.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelam Kumar Vs. Dayarani (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 298 have held that no decree of divorce can be granted unless person seeking divorce proves cruelty on the basis of pleadings and evidence. Their Lordships have further held that if a party to marriage, by his/her own conduct brings the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown, he/she cannot be allowed to seek divorce on ground of breakdown of marriage. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court under section 28 of the Act. Before the High Court, the appellant strongly defended the judgment of the trial court and pointed out that the respondent had not even led any evidence in support of her case. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court under section 28 of the Act. Before the High Court, the appellant strongly defended the judgment of the trial court and pointed out that the respondent had not even led any evidence in support of her case. The High Court, however, took the view, and we think quite rightly, that even though the respondent did not produce any evidence, no decree of divorce could be granted unless the appellant was able to prove on the basis of the pleadings and the evidences produced by him that his case was covered by section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On a consideration of the materials on record, the High Court found and held that no case of cruelty could be made out against the respondent and hence, the appellant was not entitled to the decree of dissolution of marriage on that ground. 13. Counsel for the appellant then submitted that the appellant’s marriage with the respondent had completely broken down with no hope of revival and compelling them to live together would be very hard and unjust. He made a plea for dissolution of marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. In support of the submission, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Satish Sitole Vs. Smt. Ganga, (2008) 7 SCC 734 wherein it was held in the last paragraph as follows: “ that since the marriage between the parties is dead for all practical purposes and there is no chance of it being retrieved, the continuance of such marriage would itself amount to cruelty, and, accordingly, in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution we direct that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved...” Moreover, in a later decision of this Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379 , it has been held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce as it is not contemplated under section 13 and granting divorce on this ground alone would amount to adding a clause therein by a judicial verdict which would amount to legislation by Court. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379 , it has been held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce as it is not contemplated under section 13 and granting divorce on this ground alone would amount to adding a clause therein by a judicial verdict which would amount to legislation by Court. In the concluding paragraph of this judgment, the Court observed: “If we grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is also a ground for divorce. In our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the Court. It is for the Parliament to enact or amend the law and not for the Courts.” 17.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cases 1 has held that since the husband has approached the Court for a decree of divorce, the onus was on him to prove the grounds put forth by him. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. Section 13 specifies the grounds on which a decree of divorce may be obtained by either party to the marriage. The onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably of unsound mind or is suffering from mental disorder lies on the party alleging it. It must be proved by cogent and clear evidence. 11. In the case on hand, since the appellant- husband has approached the District Court for a decree of divorce, the onus is on him to prove the grounds put-forth by him. As regards the ground alleged by the appellant- husband for a decree of divorce i e. the respondent-wife is suffering from unsound mind/mental disorder/schizophrenia, apart from his own evidence as PW-4, various Doctors, who treated her and other witnesses were also examined. From the side of the appellant- husband, Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW-1), Dr. Ravinder Mohan Sharma (PW-2), Dr. Virendra Mohan (PW­3) and Dr. Gurpreet Inder Singh Miglani (PW-7), who had given treatment to the respondent-wife for mental disorder, were examined.” 18.Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in this FAO (HMA) and the same is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. No costs.