JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This is a husband appeal, against the dismissal of Matrimonial Suit No. 112 of 2011, filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage against the respondent wife. 2. Primarily, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment dated 20th May, 2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, has tried to impress upon the Court about the alleged cruelty which he contends to have been committed by the respondent on the ground that she has shown disrespect to the parents of the husband. In the suit, she has raised the allegation of character assassination, which cannot be forgiven as it tarnishes his social image. Since the allegation of extra martial relationship was not established, it would amount to be cruelty as provided under Section 13 (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Act. 3. He submitted that when the learned Trial Court framed issue No. 2, pertaining to the allegation raised in para 27 of the written statement, in relation to the extra martial relationship with one Usha Rana, the burden of proof automatically tilts on wife, and same ought to have been discharged by the respondent who claims that husband was having the relationship with other lady. 4. He argued that due to cruel behavior, and misbehavior of hers with the family members, and depriving him with the bliss of martial relationship because she used to lock herself in the room whenever, husband returned from his service. This will amount to be mental as well as physical cruelty. 5. To aggravate the issue of cruelty, he further contended that due to constant family disturbance and also because of the attitude of respondent towards the parents of the husband, the father of the husband could not bear the shock and he ultimately met with the sad demise and the attitude of the respondent was so grievous and non-sensitive that even she has not visited the in-laws, to attend the funeral of her father-in-law. 6. The appellant has also leveled allegation that looking to the manner in which the allegations were leveled by the respondents and her mental inclination even to level allegation against the sister of the appellant (nand of the respondent) shows that it too would amount to be a cruelty and Section 13 deserves to be allowed. 7. 6. The appellant has also leveled allegation that looking to the manner in which the allegations were leveled by the respondents and her mental inclination even to level allegation against the sister of the appellant (nand of the respondent) shows that it too would amount to be a cruelty and Section 13 deserves to be allowed. 7. To qualify the findings recorded by the Court below against the appellant of his failure to take his wife to the place of his service. Was also not established. Because as per the evidence on record, there had been availability of official accommodation, which was deliberately not taken by the appellant for the reasons best known to him. Hence, the appellant filed Section 13 for dissolution of the marriage. 8. In the plaint, thus, filed on 24th August, 2011, letter seeking the decree of divorce, it was pleaded that after his marriage on 7th December, 2004 with the defendant respondent, according to the Hindu rites and rituals, she was brought to her in laws at village Chiriyani, Patti Panno, P.O. Panisain, Via. Rikhanikhal, District Pauri Garhwal. According to the husband, immediately after the marriage, she started quarrelling with the parents of the appellant as well as the plaintiff on the ground that she did not want to spend her life in the village and wanted the appellant to take her to the place of posting where he is officially posted so that both of them live together. He stated that since he happens to be the only son, hence, he owed a responsibility towards his parents to take care of them because they did not want to shift themselves at this age from their parental village, because of emotional affinity to place of residence. 9. He alleged cruelty because of lack of co-habitation whenever he returned to his home village on leave. To clarify his stand, he stated that since he is serving in the armed forces and at the place where he is stationed, there was no official accommodation available, where the respondent could be shifted to enable her to live together with her husband. He has taken this as a ground of defence in the plaint, however, still as consequence of the marriage a daughter was born, named Priya. 10. He has taken this as a ground of defence in the plaint, however, still as consequence of the marriage a daughter was born, named Priya. 10. Apart from the cruelty, the husband has also raised the ground of desertion saying that she also threatened that she will commit suicide and would falsely implicate, the family members of the appellant in criminal cases. She in July 2009, without informing the family members of the appellant left the in-laws alongwith all stridhan and went to her native place at Mawa Kote, Thana Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 11. The appellant stated that when he returned from leave and learnt about the respondent having left the in-laws house in July, 2009, he went to her house on 14th May, 2010 and after pacifying her, brought her back to his native place but the arrogant attitude of the respondent wife still persisted. 12. After the leave was over, he went back to join his duties. She, yet again, deserted and left the in-laws home in July, 2010 alongwith her daughter Priya. In the plaint, he has admitted that after she left the home in July, 2010, as alleged by the husband, the husband has received registered notice dated 29th October, 2010, sent by the respondent through her Advocate under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. 13. It was also stated in the plaint that the respondent had visited the place of posting of the appellant at Pole Kent, Himachal Pradesh and lodged a complaint before the Commanding Officer to the effect that he is not providing any maintenance to her and his daughter, on which, the Commanding Officer issued direction from making deduction from the salary and to be deposited in the joint account of the appellant and the respondent. 14. He also submitted that while her visit to Himachal Pradesh, she has also raised false allegation before the Commanding Officer, informing that the appellant has kept illicit relationship with one Usha Rana. On issuance of the notice, the respondent put appearance and denied the plaint allegation by filing written statement on 19th December, 2011. 15. 14. He also submitted that while her visit to Himachal Pradesh, she has also raised false allegation before the Commanding Officer, informing that the appellant has kept illicit relationship with one Usha Rana. On issuance of the notice, the respondent put appearance and denied the plaint allegation by filing written statement on 19th December, 2011. 15. In the additional plea, while admitting the factum of the marriage and birth of the daughter, she stated that the husband is in the habit of taking liquor and has got no love and affection towards her and due to which even now and then, he engages himself in abusing her but still she is continuing to discharge the matrimonial obligation. 16. The wife, in her written statement, submits that in the diary which was maintained by the appellant, she found that in the said diary, there was letter written by Usha Rana, which was addressed to the appellant. The said letter accompanied photographs of girl at which the address given was – Usha Rana, R/o Naya Gaon, Ratanpur, Dehradun. It also had the telephone number of the said lady. She stated that whenever she wanted to raise the query from the appellant about the relationship which he had with Usha Ran, he used to lose his balance and misbehaved with her, with the threat that she should restrict herself and should not make probe about the said relationship of husband. 17. She also stated that once the plaintiff has left his mobile in the room and went out for some work, when a call came on the said mobile number of the appellant, she received the call. She found that on the other side, it was Usha Rana who has given the call to the appellant. 18. According to the respondent, when the call was received by her, Usha Rana is said to have said that she also exercises the same rights and claim as respondent has as wife. She also raised a plea that when she was pregnant, no attention was paid to her by the appellant and her in-law and due to which she had gone to her parent and she delivered a girl child on 13.11.2008. 19. She also raised a plea that when she was pregnant, no attention was paid to her by the appellant and her in-law and due to which she had gone to her parent and she delivered a girl child on 13.11.2008. 19. Case of the respondent was that despite having knowledge of the birth of the girl, none of the family members of the appellant came to visit or perform any ceremony on the birth of the daughter. In para 37 of the written statement, she narrated the incident of she having visited the unit at Pole Kent, Himachal Pradesh and had given the information to the Commanding Officer and she admitted that out of the salary, Rs. 6000/- was deducted from the salary on the direction of superior officer to be deposited in the bank account. 20. The wife made effort to revive the marriage by issuing a notice dated 29th October, 2010 intending to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The fact of issuance of notice and its service on the appellant is admitted. 21. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues : ^^1- D;k izfrokfnuh }kjk oknh ds lkFk dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k x;k gS] tSlk fd okn i= esa dgk x;k gS] ;fn gkWa rks izHkko \ 2 D;k oknh ds fdlh m"kk jkuk uked efgyk ls lEcU/k gS] tSlk fd izfrokn i= ds izLrj la[;k&27 esa dgk x;k gS] ;fn gkWa rks izHkko \ 3 D;k oknh }kjk izfrokfnuh ds lkFk dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k x;k gS] tSlk fd izfrokn i= es dgk x;k gS] ;fn gkWa rks izHkko \ 4 Okknh fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \** 22. To support the respective version, the plaintiff/appellant himself appeared in the witness box as PW1, his mother Lakhana Devi as PW2 and his sister Rinku Rawat as PW3. They were cross examined by the respondent. In documentary evidence, the appellant has placed reliance, the copy of the notice under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as sent by the respondent. 23. The respondent appeared in the witness box as DW1 and cross examined the plaintiff witnesses. In documentary evidence, she placed on record – the document of purchase of motor vehicle, document of insurance, bills of ornaments and various other documents including the photographs. 23. The respondent appeared in the witness box as DW1 and cross examined the plaintiff witnesses. In documentary evidence, she placed on record – the document of purchase of motor vehicle, document of insurance, bills of ornaments and various other documents including the photographs. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and scrutinizing both the oral and documentary evidence, is said to have dismissed the writ petition under Section 13 by the impugned judgment. 24. On scrutiny of overall dispute which prevailed between the appellant and the respondent, what is summed up is as a matter of fact the dispute raised by the wife was that she wanted to live alongwith the appellant and requested him to take her to the place, where he is posted. 25. In almost all the pleadings, the affidavits filed by the appellant always shows that he was reluctant to take his wife to the place of his posting under the pretext that at the place of posting, there is no official accommodation made to him, due to which, he contended that it is not possible to keep her there. 26. What is surprising is that this inability of the husband to keep his wife at the place of posting cannot be relied for the reason that the document shows he had never applied for getting the official accommodation at the place of his posting. 27. When the plaintiff was cross examined as PW1, it has revealed in his cross examination, he admitted that respondent visited his Unit, and the superior official did offer him to have a official quarter which was denied by the appellant. If this be so, then, the reason assigned in the pleading by the appellant that he is unable to take his wife, due to non-availability of official accommodation, is false and this in itself would amount to cruelty, for the reason that every wife expects and has a right to live with her husband to shower her love and affection and, in turn, to receive the same. But, in this case, she was deprived by that and it will amount to be a mental cruelty and that too when it is based upon false plea raised by the appellant. 28. But, in this case, she was deprived by that and it will amount to be a mental cruelty and that too when it is based upon false plea raised by the appellant. 28. This aspect of the controversy has to be seen from another angle, that let us presume, what the husband was proclaiming non-availability of official accommodation, be true for a moment, but there is nothing on record to show that he has ever made any effort to get a private rental accommodation. Hence, his case shows that as a matter of fact, he was not serious in keeping his wife together, and taking excuse of non availability of accommodation as a shield to keep wife away. 29. If the statement of PW1 is further scrutinized that because of the fact that in the statement, he has submitted that he has refused to take official accommodation, itself shows that he never wanted to take his wife to the place where he is working. Hence, by not making efforts to ensure wife lives together, it could be said that the cruelty was exercised by the husband. The husband, in his case, as per the plaint and statement submitted that wife was not discharging her matrimonial obligation because she was not preparing food for her parents and whenever, he used to ask for any help, she used to misbehave and quarrel. Appellant husband has stated that since the wife was not preparing the food for his parents, they often used to sleep without having any food. This stand is belied on the fact that the mother of the appellant appeared as PW2 before the Court below and in her statement recorded, she has stated that the last eight years, she is living without there being any help being extended by the respondent because she despite of various requests made, has not returned back. As a result, PW2 mother of the appellant, submits that she is cooking her food herself; stating that she sleeps without having food been taken to the mother is false. 30. From the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that the theory as agitated by the husband that his parents are sleeping without any food is false. As a result, PW2 mother of the appellant, submits that she is cooking her food herself; stating that she sleeps without having food been taken to the mother is false. 30. From the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that the theory as agitated by the husband that his parents are sleeping without any food is false. From the conduct of the appellant it is shown that despite the fact that he socially owned the responsibility to maintain his wife and minor daughter but he deliberately avoided the same which is resulted into the increasing the difficulty for the respondent and her daughter due to which she had filed complaint to the superior official who after extending the same, had somehow provided some respite by making deduction from the salary for the purpose of maintaining herself and daughter. At this stage, itself, she also informed the superior officer about the illicit relationship with Usha Rana and a copy of complaint was filed before the Superior Official including the alleged letter written by Usha Rana to the appellant and photograph in the diary which was made part and parcel of the service record of the appellant. 31. To maintain the marriage, one has to have the emotional attachment with one another which was lacking in the present case due to the fact that the appellant’s affection was diversified to Usha Rana as was established from the letters produced by the respondent before the Superior authority. 32. For severement of the relationship, of the settled matrimony under the Hindu system of law is to be done remotely. Apart from all above misunderstanding and acrimony, which apparently seems to have created feud which was not exactly existing between the husband and wife because the wife has expressed her willingness to live together and also because of the fact that the husband in his cross examination has admitted the fact that despite of all these situation prevailing he had entered into physical relationship with the wife on a number of occasions. 33. Thereafter, but he contends that the wife had committed the cruelty because she became pregnant and later on, she has aborted without the consent of the husband. But to establish the issue of abortion, he has not produced any document or medical certificate to show that any such abortion was committed by her without the knowledge of the husband. 33. Thereafter, but he contends that the wife had committed the cruelty because she became pregnant and later on, she has aborted without the consent of the husband. But to establish the issue of abortion, he has not produced any document or medical certificate to show that any such abortion was committed by her without the knowledge of the husband. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that any cruelty was committed by her and the story of abortion was manufactured by the husband. 34. There is another angle that if he admits being entered into the physical relationship and if he submits that she has aborted, it shows that there was not denial by the wife from maintaining the relationship by husband and wife, and, hence, it will not lead to cruelty. 35. It was contended by the appellant that he has sent notice on 29th October, 2010 to the respondent for restitution of conjugal right which was neither responded back nor she joined to discharge her matrimonial obligation. The said stand of the husband, issuing notice under Section 9 will be of no avail to him for the reason that he has never filed any proceedings under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal right after the expiry of the period given in the notice. Hence, it could not be said that such notice was in peshbandi without their being actual intend to keep the wife with him. 36. The very fact that the husband has issued the notice, and on the perusal of the notice, he wanted her to come back, shows that husband has forgotten all the act of misbehavior of the wife but without their being any actual effort made to bring her back. 37. The learned Trial Court, while dealing the issue pertaining to the illicit relationship with Usha Rana all the actions of bringing fact to the knowledge of superior authority was done on the complaint of respondent No. 2. 38. The appellant had admitted the fact before the Commanding Officer that he used to receive the call from a lady called as Usha, which was also proved by the witnesses adduced by the plaintiff. A reference may be had the statement of PW2, who in her cross examination conducted by the respondent, has admitted the fact that his son, the appellant, used to receive phone call from the girl. 39. A reference may be had the statement of PW2, who in her cross examination conducted by the respondent, has admitted the fact that his son, the appellant, used to receive phone call from the girl. 39. This statement of the mother, who was conscious of the dispute between the husband and wife, if read in relation with the allegation levelled by the respondent and the document submitted by her before the Commanding Officer, in its totality, shows that the husband was having some affinity with Usha Rana and this in itself was sufficient ground as contemplated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 40. The learned Trial Court, in its judgment impugned, consolidated the issues pertaining to the cruelty and the relationship with Usha Rana. The learned Trial Court, while looking with the allegation about the relationship with Usha Rana, while scrutinizing paper No. 29-GA/7, 229-Ga/10, came into conclusion that the same letter does not bear the name of any lady. The Court held whenever such question is raised by the wife about the relationship with another lady, it is the duty of the husband to make the wife understand what is the gravity of the relationship and to clear her doubts. But the plaintiff/appellant never made such effort nor it is his case in pleading but rather on a query, being asked, had entered into quarrel and acrimony and asked her not to interfere in his affairs and to take care of her own business. 41. On the issue of allegation that the respondent had not visited the in-laws on the death of the father of the appellant despite the information having been given in the statement recorded by the respondent, she has submitted that she has never received any such information about the demised of her father-in-law and, in the absence of any such information, she was unable to attend the funeral. She stated that no such information was given and, for the first time, information was handed over to her through the Pradhan of the Village Kotni Sain. She stated that no such information was given and, for the first time, information was handed over to her through the Pradhan of the Village Kotni Sain. This Court feels that as a matter of fact, the allegation and counter allegation which has been levelled by the parties to the suit is such that which ought not to be recourse into dissolution of marriage, more particularly, when the grounds agitated by the husband in his application under Section 13 on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties shows that they were the grounds manufactured by twisting the events contrary to the evidence on record. 42. As a matter of fact, the statement of PW2, pertaining to the relation, shows that it was done deliberately so that severement of relationship can be done. But the fact remains, out of the marriage, there is a daughter who is born. Dissolution of marriage should not be resorted to on such type of trivial issues as under the Hindu system the matrimony should prevail. In the observation made by the Trial Court, while concluding its finding on issue No. 1, the Trial Court has observed as under : ^^oknh@lk{kh ih0MCyw0&1 lqjthr flag ls izfrokfnuh }kjk dh x;h izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us dgk gS fd og vc viuh iRuh dks iqjkuh ckrksa dks Hkqykdj Hkh j[kus dks rS;kj ugh gS] tcfd izfrokfnuh@lk{kh Mh0MCyw0&1 Jherh jatuk ls oknh }kjk dh x;h izfrijh{kk esa iwNs x;s iz’u esa bl lk{kh us Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd oknh vkt Hkh izfrokfnuh dks vius lkFk j[kus dks rS;kj gS rFkk izfrokfnuh us Hkh cM+s lgt :i ls mRrj fn;k gS fd izfrokfnuh Hkh oknh ds lkFk jgus dks rS;kj gS] ftlls ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vHkh i{kdkj vius oSokfgd thou dks cpk;sa j[kuk pkgrs gSaA blds vfrfjDr lk{kh Mh0MCyw0&1 Jherh jatuk us oknh }kjk dh x;h izfrijh{kk esa ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k gS fd og vHkh lqjthr ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gSA og tgka Hkh j[ks] lqjthr ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gSA izfrokfnuh] oknh dh fof/kd fookfgrk iRuh gS rFkk izfrokfnuh dk vk'k; drbZ vius ifr ls oSokfgd lEcU/k lekIr djus dk ugh gS vkSj izfrokfnuh dgha Hkh oknh ds lkFk jgus dks rS;kj gSA** 43. Since the husband himself has issued notice under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights, coupled with the fact that the husband as PW1 and the respondent as DW1, before the Court below, on the question being raised by the Court about both of them desired staying together, the plaintiff has stated that he is willing to keep the respondent wife. Similarly, the respondent has also stated that she is willing to spend her matrimonial life with the appellant. 44. The Trial Court, thus, has drawn an inference that the marriage cord has not yet broken and there is possibility of their coming together as both of them wanted to save their matrimonial life. On scrutiny of the statement of DW1, she has stated that she wants to live with the plaintiff wherever he wants to keep her and she never intends to dissolve the marriage. Owing to such intend of mind of both the parties, this Court feels that there is no necessity, at this stage, to dissolve the marriage and, thus, the judgment passed by the Court below dismissing the suit for dissolution of marriage was just and proper. Thus, looking over all surrounding circumstances, the learned Family Court has not committed any error by not granting the decree of divorce as prayed for by the appellant. 45. Thus, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.