JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- The unsuccessful husband who lost his plea for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has come up in appeal. 2. It is the contention of the appellant that his marriage with respondent took place on 17.6.1994 at Panipat as per Hindu rites and customs. The respondent gave birth to a male child by name Shubham on 27.9.1995 and a female child by name Shaila. Both the children were living with the appellant. The respondent was a quarrelsome lady. She had made the life of the appellant a hell. She pressurized the appellant to separate from his parents. She used to misbehave and abuse his parents. The appellant had to shift from one rented accommodation to another on account of the quarrelsome nature of the respondent and her attitude to pick-up quarrel with the neighbours. The growth of the children has been stunted on account of the quarrel picked-up by the respondent with the appellant. Due to constant fighting, he lost his mental balance. He had also to loose his business of jaggery. His 15 years old son Shubham is mentally disturbed. The respondent neither wanted to live with him amicably nor did she want to leave him. She also did not permit him to have sex. The appellant has sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. The respondent-wife filed her written statement stating that the appellant was guilty of cruelty committed towards the respondent. The respondent tolerated the behaviour of the appellant for 15 long years. She never pressurized the respondent to set up a separate establishment. The appellant was a quarrelsome person and he used to beat her. He was not taking interest in family affairs. As the appellant kept on harassing her, she filed a complaint whereupon the police charged him under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. It is denied that she refused to have sex with the appellant. Infact, the appellant and the respondent were residing in the same house in one room and sleep on the same bed. She always prepared food and washed clothes. The respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. On the side of the appellant, the appellant was examined as PW1. Ms.Satyawati, Clerk attached to the Family Counselling Centre, Bal Bhawan, Jind was examined as PW2. The father of the appellant by name Chander Bhan was examined as PW3. 5. She always prepared food and washed clothes. The respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. On the side of the appellant, the appellant was examined as PW1. Ms.Satyawati, Clerk attached to the Family Counselling Centre, Bal Bhawan, Jind was examined as PW2. The father of the appellant by name Chander Bhan was examined as PW3. 5. On the side of the respondent, the respondent was examined as RW1. A retired Naib Tehsildar Sh.Siya Ram Sharma was examined as RW2 and the brother of the respondent was examined as RW3. 6. The trial Court having thoroughly analyzed the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the ground of cruelty set up by the appellant was not established. 7. The point that arises for determination is whether the appellant has established the ground of cruelty set up by him. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit referring to the evidence of RW1 that the respondent had admitted that she used to quarrel with the appellant in the street. The quarrel also took place when the neighbours and passers-by assembled in the street. Therefore, it is his submission that the respondent was a quarrelsome woman who had made the matrimonial life of the appellant miserable. On such cruelty being perpetrated by the respondent on the appellant, the latter is entitled to a decree of divorce, it is submitted. 9. Of course, the appellant has deposed that the respondent was a quarrelsome lady. But it is not the admission of the respondent that she used to pick up quarrel. In fact, RW2 Siya Ram Shamra, a retired Naib Tehsildar who was a neighbour of the house where the appellant and the respondent resided spoke about the fact that it was only the appellant who picked-up quarrel with the respondent and beat her up. She was rescued by him. The evidence of an independent witness RW2 Siya Ram Sharma who is found to be a reputed witness in the village cannot be ignored. Even otherwise, unless the appellant was equally aggressive and combative, the quarrel would not have spilled over to the street. The entire evidence on record would go to show that the appellant was also equally aggressive and combative, as otherwise the fight between the couple would not have been demonstrated on the street. 10. Even otherwise, unless the appellant was equally aggressive and combative, the quarrel would not have spilled over to the street. The entire evidence on record would go to show that the appellant was also equally aggressive and combative, as otherwise the fight between the couple would not have been demonstrated on the street. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit referring to the evidence of RW1 that she had admitted that she doubted the character of the appellant. Such a conduct of the respondent doubting the character of the appellant would amount to cruelty, it was argued. He also cited, in the above context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.(Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. vs. Dr. B.V. Ravi, M.D., [2014(3) Law Herald (SC) 2474 : 2014(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3096 (SC)] : 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 621, wherein the subsequent event which culminated in cruelty was taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief of divorce to the respondent. 11. In the instant case, the appellant had not complained in the petition for divorce that the respondent doubted his character. Nor had the respondent put up a defence in the written statement that the character of the appellant was doubtful. Only during the cross-examination a suggestion was put to the respondent by the appellant as to whether she doubted the character of the appellant. Her answer was in the affirmative. 12. Firstly, in our view, had the appellant been offended by any character assassination made by the respondent, he would have definitely projected it as a ground for divorce in the petition. In other words, we find that the opinion of the respondent as regards the character of the appellant was not at all an issue between the appellant and the respondent. A non- issue between the parties cannot be projected as an issue to get the relief sought for by the appellant. Secondly, there was no allegation of set of mental agony on account of such character assassination. In other words, a mere doubt as to the character of the respondent without any semblance of cruelty experienced by the appellant cannot at all be a ground for getting a relief of divorce. Secondly, there was no allegation of set of mental agony on account of such character assassination. In other words, a mere doubt as to the character of the respondent without any semblance of cruelty experienced by the appellant cannot at all be a ground for getting a relief of divorce. Thirdly, in our view, the doubt entertained by the respondent as regards the character of the appellant was not at all a subsequent event which could be liberally taken into account while deciding the fate of the petition for divorce filed by the appellant as per the decision referred to above. Therefore, we find that there is no merit in the above submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to the relief of divorce on account of the ground of cruelty as there was a character assassination emanated from the respondent. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that it is the admitted position that the respondent filed a criminal complaint as against the appellant. Such a false criminal complaint lodged as against the appellant would amount to cruelty, it is submitted. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would bring to our notice during the course of his submission that there was nothing on record to say that the complaint given by the respondent was a false one. 15. We find that there is some merit in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Nothing has been produced by the appellant to show that the complaint given by the respondent turned out to be a false complaint. Without any documentary proof, it cannot be submitted that the complaint given by the respondent was a false one. Therefore, the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant also fails to impact us. 16. We find that the appellant and the respondent had lived as husband and wife together for more than 16 years. Out of their wedlock, they had been blessed with two children. The son is going to attain majority shortly. It was not denied by the appellant that the present petition for divorce was filed by the appellant when he was infact, sharing bed with the respondent by living in the very same house. Both the children had stayed with the respondent at the time when the petition was filed. The son is going to attain majority shortly. It was not denied by the appellant that the present petition for divorce was filed by the appellant when he was infact, sharing bed with the respondent by living in the very same house. Both the children had stayed with the respondent at the time when the petition was filed. Only, after some time, the boy had come and joined his grandparents. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the plea of the appellant that the respondent had not cared about the mental growth of the male child by name Shubham. It is true that she had admitted that she threw out the tablets prescribed by the Doctor from PGI Rohtak as those tablets did not suit the minor child Shubham. It is not the admission of the respondent that she exhibited her violent behaviour by throwing away the tablets even when she felt that the administration of those tablets would cure the lack of intellectual capacity encountered by the male child Shubham. She preferred to throw away the tablets prescribed by the Doctor as she genuinely felt that those tablets did not go well with the male child Shubham. At any rate, the above act of the respondent does not reflect the alleged cruel behaviour of the respondent. 17. Frequent change of residence at the instance of the respondent was also put forth as one of the genesis of cruelty. In our view, frequent change of residence would not reflect the cruel attitude of the respondent. Infact, the respondent stoutly denied that the quarrel picked-up by her culminated in frequent change of accommodation. Even otherwise, there would not have been any occasion to shift the residence had the appellant put up with the wear and tear of the matrimonial life and stopped giving equal fight to his wife. 18. For all these reasons, we find that trial Court has rightly come to a conclusion based on the evidence on record that the appellant was not entitled to the relief of divorce as sought for by him. We do not find any merit in the appeal and therefore, it stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ------------------