JUDGMENT Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Wife is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala, in a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), vide which divorce has been granted in favour of the husband by a decree of divorce. 2. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act with the facts that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18.6.1993 at Ambala according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter, marriage was consummated and daughter Neha was born on 28.4.1994 from the wedlock. At the time of marriage, husband was serving as distributor in Haryana Government Press, Chandigarh and wife was serving in the Environment Department in Haryana at Chandigarh. Both lived in Chandigarh till October 1993. Husband has stated that the conduct of the wife was indifferent as she used to treat him with cruelty and pick up fights and was compelling him to shift from Manimajra to Ambala City, at the place of her parents, where all her other sisters were living with the family of the wife. When the husband did not agree with the demand of the wife, she became indifferent in her conduct and thereafter, she used to abuse and did not perform matrimonial obligations towards his family. She continued treating the husband with cruelty and refused to accompany him to village Badhouli and ultimately left the company of the husband/ matrimonial home on 14.4.1994 and since then she is living with her parents at Ambala. The husband has also pleaded that the wife had lodged FIR on 24.8.1995 under Sections 406/ 498-A IPC. Lodging of aforesaid FIR was on false premise against the husband and is bogus and the said case had ultimately entailed in acquittal of the husband and his family members on 11.9.2002 by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The acquittal in this false case itself is claimed to be a ground of cruelty on the part of the wife. The husband has also pleaded that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent on 2.4.1996. The acquittal in this false case itself is claimed to be a ground of cruelty on the part of the wife. The husband has also pleaded that a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent on 2.4.1996. In the said case, the wife appeared and made a statement before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh that she had been living separately from the husband since 14.4.1994 and there was no chance of re-conciliation between the couple. However, later on she made a statement not to pursue the said petition and the same was dismissed. The husband has claimed that he has not condoned the acts of her cruelty. 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 13 of the Act on 24/ 28.2.1998 by the husband. At one point of time, it was decided ex parte on 6.10.1998 in favour of the husband. After aforesaid ex parte decision, the wife filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decision only on 6.1.2000. The said application was contested and after necessary proceedings and leading of evidence, when the stage of adducing the evidence of the wife came, the parties arrived at some settlement and made the statement before the learned District Judge, Amabla on 11.3.2002, where the husband gave an undertaking to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife and failing which the application for setting aside the judgement and decree be allowed in favour of the wife. Evidently, the husband could not make good the aforesaid promise and ultimately on 4.6.2003, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 6.10.1998 was set aside on the aforesaid premise. It is relevant to state here that it has also come on record that the husband contracted second marriage on 5.3.2000 after having waited for so long. Learned trial Court allowed the petition of the husband thereby granting divorce vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2004 and that is how the wife has come in present appeal before this Court. We have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and have also perused the record. 4. Learned trial Court allowed the petition of the husband thereby granting divorce vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2004 and that is how the wife has come in present appeal before this Court. We have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and have also perused the record. 4. Evidently, a false case was registered against the husband and his family members vide FIR dated 24.8.1995, in which the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh had acquitted the husband and his family members vide judgment of acquittal dated 11.9.2002. In this way, the cruelty as alleged by the wife in the form of Section 498-A IPC has not been found proved. Rather that false implication of the husband and his family members has caused cruelty on them on account of conduct of the wife. It is a settled principle by now that if on false premise, case is registered for matrimonial offences and the Court acquits the accused therein, then the same amounts to cruelty at the instance of the complainant party. In this case, the aforesaid facts are so glaring that the cruelty can be apparently held at the instance of the wife. 5. Additionally, in the mutual divorce, which was filed jointly by the parties on 2.4.1996, the wife appeared before the court and made a statement and thereafter, she resiled by deposing indifferently. Ultimately, that petition entailed in withdrawal. That conduct of the wife also gives rise to an inference of her abnormal attitude and possessing indifferent mind at different quarters. 6. Even in the petition under Section 13 of the Act, filed by the husband on 24/ 28.2.1998, the wife was proceeded ex parte on 6.10.1998 and the manner in which the wife was proceeded ex parte and thereafter, her silence up to 6.1.2000 further adds to the conduct of the wife in stretching protracted litigation indefinitely to a greater extent. Even her application dated 6.1.2000 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree culminated in settlement by the husband and non fulfilment of the undertaking by the husband, ultimately resulted in acceptance of that application and setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree dated 6.10.1998. Admittedly, the husband has re-married and matrimonial interest of second wife has also come into being. Apparently, the wife is living separately since 1994 without there being any acceptable reason. Admittedly, the husband has re-married and matrimonial interest of second wife has also come into being. Apparently, the wife is living separately since 1994 without there being any acceptable reason. As regards cruelty the attending circumstances of the case give rise to only irresistible conclusion that it is the wife, who has caused cruelty to the husband and his family members by way of protracted litigation in question. On criminal side, the registration of false case, which ultimately resulted in acquittal, gives rise to cruelty against husband. Desertion on the part of the wife since 1994 gives rise to only irresistible conclusion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. On this aspect, reference can easily be made to AIR 2006 SC 1675 Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli. The argument of learned counsel of the appellant in the aforesaid scenario do not advance the case of the appellant from any corner. Learned counsel has stressed upon non recording of finding of cruelty by the learned trial Court. The observation of learned trial Court that the marriage between the parties has come to complete dead end and, therefore, it would be futile exercise, if they are asked to live together, has been assailed by saying that the learned trial Court has not recorded any finding of fact on the subject matter of cruelty. As already discussed, the facts on record are suggestive of the fact that in this background it cannot be said that there was no cruelty at the instance of the wife when she has unsuccessfully lodged criminal prosecution against the husband and having failed therein turned around and harassed him and his family members by way of protracted matrimonial litigation in the form of Section 13-B of the Act as well as in the form of Section 13 of the Act and during the intervening stage when she was proceeded against ex parte and setting aside of those ex parte proceedings on conditional basis. 7. Though the cruelty has not been strictly defined anywhere but the same has already been interpreted in numerous precedents of the Hon’ble Courts. 7. Though the cruelty has not been strictly defined anywhere but the same has already been interpreted in numerous precedents of the Hon’ble Courts. The concept of cruelty much less a mental cruelty has been highlighted in a well propounded judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Bhagat vs. D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710 , in which it was authoritatively held that the mental cruelty is such where it is not possible for the spouse to live in the company of the other and the nature of act is such where it is not reasonably expected to live by one spouse in the company of other. The concept of cruelty is directly related to human problem/ psychological approach, frequent change in human behaviour and conduct of the spouses and all these things are to be kept in mind, while appreciating the concept of cruelty by the Court. 8. Similarly, on the point of desertion, animus deserendi has to be proved. In the given case, since appellant-wife is living separately w.e.f. 1994 and this long separation has irretrievably broken down the marriage. Though living separately can itself be no ground of presuming desertion but factum of separation, coupled with intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end, are the necessary ingredients to infer animus deserendi and desertion. All these ingredients are fully attracted in the present case and the appellant has miserably failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to show that she is not guilty of cruelty and desertion. 9. The arguments of learned counsel for the respondent are based upon the evidence of the wife herself when in her cross-examination, she tried to avoid giving certain answers of questions, which were put to her. The wife refused to answer on the pretext of having forgotten the facts. The wife was specifically questioned whether her statement was recorded in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and her reply to this question was “not remembering the same”. The wife also denied living at her parental house No.21, Parshu Ram Nagar, Ambala during the days when she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The evidence shows that she was living on the aforesaid address at the relevant time and she has deliberately not given answer under the pretext of not remembering the facts. Wife cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Wife cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. The allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty levelled by the wife are only general in nature and these allegations besides being fake are totally baseless which can be appreciated in the light of her admission in the pleadings and on oath that for the first six months she lived very happily in the matrimonial life and thereafter, the husband started harassing her on demand of dowry. On the contrary, PW-3, her uncle has deposed that the wife lived happily for the first 9-10 months and thereafter, the demand of dowry was made by the husband and his family members. A correct appreciation has been made by the learned trial Court on this aspect of the matter, finding that the allegations are fake and unfounded. Since both the parties were employed at the time of marriage and therefore, particularly the wife chose to live in her own way and levelling of allegation are proved to be general in nature inasmuch as that no specific instance, time and manner of cruelty have been pleaded and proved. Looking from any angle the impugned judgment and decree does not suffer from any vice of illegality or any jurisdictional error. The marriage is proved to have been irretrievably broken down and the wife is proved to be at fault on the aspect of cruelty and desertion, which are directly attributable to her in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. Hence, the appeal being totally devoid on merit is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————