JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. Following were the issues as framed by the learned family Court on 20.08.2014 based on the pleading of parties, while considering the relief claimed by the husband by filing a Suit under Section 13 seeking dissolution of marriage, solemnized between them on 31.05.2009. 2. Primarily on the exchange of the pleadings, the issue which was sought to be adjudicated for resolving the applicability of Section 13 was; (i) As to whether the wife has acted with cruelty by using humiliating words and has commissioned cruelty against the family members? (ii) As to whether based on the cruelty, a dissolution of marriage could be granted? 3. Though the pleadings were very vivid but the parties to the dispute confined their evidence to a very limited extent to substantiate their respective stands regards cruelty. The husband in support of his contention himself appeared as PW-1 and filed an affidavit in examination in chief paper No. 44 Ka and produced the affidavit paper No. 48 Ka of PW-2 and recorded his statement. He also produced Smt. Kamlesh as PW-3 who filed her affidavit in examination in chief as paper No. 49 Ga and one Smt. Afsar Jahan as PW-4, who submit her paper no. 70 Ka. 4. While on the other hand, the respondent-wife appeared as a sole witness and recorded her testimony in consonance to her affidavit examination in chief as paper No. 75-Ka. After framing of the issues and leading of evidence by the parties to the family dispute under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was based upon their respective pleadings, the impugned judgment has been rendered by learned Family Court. 5. The case of the appellant-husband was that he was married with the respondent according to the Hindu rituals on 31.05.2009 at Kashipur and after their marriage they resided together and discharged all their matrimonial obligations and provided all facilities and comfort to one another. The husband submitted that at the time of marriage, he was a govt. employee and was serving in Armed forces and was working in the Cant at Kanpur. Quite obviously, as needed as per memo of disciplined forces, immediately after the marriage he had to leave respondent–wife at Kashipur to join his duty at his place of posting at Kanpur. The husband submitted that at the time of marriage, he was a govt. employee and was serving in Armed forces and was working in the Cant at Kanpur. Quite obviously, as needed as per memo of disciplined forces, immediately after the marriage he had to leave respondent–wife at Kashipur to join his duty at his place of posting at Kanpur. The case of the appellant was that he often now and then used to avail leave to visit Kashipur for discharging his matrimonial obligations. During this period, while he was serving in Kanpur, wife used to stay with her mother-in-law. 6. According to the husband, initial period of the marriage, the attitude of the wife remain normal as expected from a newly wedded wife, but gradually it started deteriorating and she started misbehaving and using filthy language to the elderly persons of the family which has quite humiliating and later on it aggravated to the extent that she started quarrelling with the family members and even physical assaulted them. 7. The husband’s case was that he tried to make her understand, even complained to the his in-laws about the attitude of wife but in response thereof the in-laws contended that they have given him a wife and not a servant to serve the family members of the husband and thus they contended that she will not perform any domestic work. Despite of all these atrocious circumstances and out of physical relations between them, a daughter Peehoo was born. But despite of birth of a girl child, the attitude of the respondent-wife did not changed and she continued with the same coercive behaviour against the parents of the husband. 8. She had even gone to an extent asking the husband to kept her at her parent’s place i.e. at Bareilly, where she wanted to live separately and if the husband fails to do so, she will immolate herself. It was the case of the husband that when all efforts made by him to maintain the matrimony, all of a sudden on 01.08.2011, the respondent-wife without informing to any of the family members had deserted the husband and while leaving the matrimonial home, she has carried with her all her valuables, ornaments and cloths to her parent’s home. 9. It was the case of the husband that when all efforts made by him to maintain the matrimony, all of a sudden on 01.08.2011, the respondent-wife without informing to any of the family members had deserted the husband and while leaving the matrimonial home, she has carried with her all her valuables, ornaments and cloths to her parent’s home. 9. According to the husband the wife deserted him at the time when other family members had gone out to attend a marriage ceremony and they were not available at home. She left the home and husband has come to know that she is residing at Bareilly with her parents. All this acts of the respondent-wife, according to the husband was a cruelty both physical and mental calling for invocation of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage dated 31.05.2009. 10. The respondent-wife appeared before the Court below and filed her written statement as Paper No. 41 Ka, denied the plaint allegation except admitting the fact with regards to marriage with the appellant, with regards to the birth of a girl child. 11. The respondent-wife in her written statement, she had also denied the story as developed by the husband of the incident of 01.08.2011 that the wife has deserted the family after taking all the stridhan and valuables. Rather she contended that the story as developed by the husband is absolutely false as she is stil staying with the family of the husband. She contended in response to it that the theory of desertion has been developed by the husband deliberately to overcome the issue pertaining to the demand of dowry which they have claimed and was not satisfied by the parents of the respondent-wife. 12. She though without any pleading and evidence alleged that the plaintiff and his family members made effort to do away with her but somehow she was saved and thus prayed for that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, initiated by the appellant-husband may be rejected as there exists no element of cruelty or desertion calling for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act as none of the ingredients exist for it. 13. 13. She has submitted that looking to the atrocities and the humiliation which she was facing at the hands of the husband she was forced to initiate proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was pending at the time when the Suit was at the final stage. 14. Based on the pleadings since the issue Nos. 1 and 2 also involved and identical question of facts, law and evidence, the learned Trial Court consolidated issue Nos. 1 and 2 and decided them together as it exclusively related to a cruelty which has chanced to the family members on account of misbehaviour and using of humiliated words by the wife and the consistent pressure she use to inflict on husband to live separately from his parents, knowing the fact that he was serving in the armed forces. 15. Apart from the affidavit as filed by the appellant-husband as paper No. 44 ka, there is no other evidence brought by him on record pertaining to the cruelty nor there was any complaint said to have been lodged by the appellant-husband about any incident which has chanced amongst family members. He submitted though contrary to the pleadings of the plaint that whenever he returned from leave he was not permitted by the wife to enter her room often and he had to sleep outside the room and whenever he tried to make an effort to enter the room he was misbehaved by the wife who used to hurt abuses, not even this according to the husband when she got aggravated she even used to attack the parents of the husband by scissors and other household articles which at time caused injuries. 16. The story of administering poison by wife to the husband as developed by him was also not proved and the story that when he doubted that the food provided by the wife was having poison in it, he gave a bite to his dog who died immediately thereafter, was also a fiction not proved so as to attract cruelty, as no effect was made to prove it. The appellant in support of his contention submitted that there had been no intention of the wife to live with the husband because she has expressed not to live at the place of his posting. 17. The appellant in support of his contention submitted that there had been no intention of the wife to live with the husband because she has expressed not to live at the place of his posting. 17. Wife’s case was that she even submitted that the story of the administering poison to the husband as pleaded in the affidavit has not been proved because there was no evidence on record nor there was any post mortem conducted on the dog to show the cause of death of dog was due to poisoning which the wife wanted to be administered to the husband and in the absence of there being any established evidence about the poisoning of the dog it could not be said that the wife intended to kill the husband, by serving him poisonous food. 18. The learned Court below while scrutinizing the veracity of the statement of PW-2 Rajesh who was a family member and relative of the appellant in his statement as recorded before the learned Court below, he has submitted that it was on the instructions of the appellant that he was called upon in witness box to depose in his favour. Rather to the contrary in his statement he has submitted that he has got no personal knowledge as to what was the magnitude of acrimony between the husband and wife nor he was aware as to what was happening amongst them in their room, thus on scrutiny of statement it could be said that he has expressed his ignorance to the grounds taken by the husband in his petition under Section 13 for dissolution of marriage. He even so much so denied the fact about the incident of attack by the wife on the parents of the appellant by scissor. 19. Even PW-3 Smt. Kamlesh who was produced in the witness box by the husband too was a relative and the appellant was her cousin brother. She in her statement submitted that though she supported the incident of attack made by the wife on the parents of the husband but she showed her ignorance to the date and time on which the incident has taken place and even she showed her ignorance about date and time when the wife made attempt to administer poison to her husband by serving poisonous food. 20. 20. Another witness who was produced was Smt. Afzar Jahan as PW-4 who had stated that the wife of the husband never used to permit husband to sleep in her room. Rest of the fact which was recorded in her statement was hearsay, without any source of information or knowledge reflected by her. 21. The learned family Court, while scrutinizing the evidence which was by way of an oral testimony only reduced allegation/ charges as levelled by the wife to the following effect :- 1- D;k foi{kh dk O;ogkj “kknh ds dqN le; ds ckn ls gh Øzwjrkiw.kZ gks x;k rFkk og oknh o mlds ifjokjokyksa ds lkFk xkyh xykSp o ekjihV djus yxhA 2- oknh tc ukSdjh dh NqVVh ysdj vkrk Fkk rks foi{kh vius dejs esa ugha ?kqlus nsrh Fkh rFkk mls viekfur djrh FkhA 3- foi{kh us mlds o mldh ekrk ds mij dbZ ckj diM+k dkVus okyh dSaph ls izgkj fd;k] ftlls oknh o mldh eka xEHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks xbZA 4- foi{kh }kjk oknh dks [kkus esa tgj fn;k x;k FkkA oknh }kjk mDr [kkus dks “kd ds vk/kkj ij vius ikyrw dqRrs dks f[kyk;k x;k rks mldk ikyrw dqRrk dqN le; ckn ej x;kA 22. On scrutinizing the evidence against their respective pleadings, the learned Court below held that all the circumstances which the husband has tried to bring the issue within the ambit of cruelty, which according to Court below is always a variable factor in each matrimonial relationship and each cases seeking dissolution of marriage. On the scrutiny of the statement recorded and witness produced by the husband, none of the fact pleaded comes to prove that their existed and persisted any such event which could have causes a cruelty nor the same was proved for the purposes of dissolving the marriage, in cases under Section 13, when a social relation is intended to be dissolved, then it has to be proved by evidence, without which the suit for dissolving the marriage between husband and wife, particularly on the ground enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be decreed. Before the Court comes to the conclusion it has to be settled by the persons claiming a divorce on the ground that there did existed the circumstances to dissolve the marriage. Before the Court comes to the conclusion it has to be settled by the persons claiming a divorce on the ground that there did existed the circumstances to dissolve the marriage. If a party fails to substantiate or prove by evidence and more particularly when the oral evidence produced were tutored evidence of the appellant, the matrimony rightly so and has been declined to be dissolved by the learned Court below. 23. In the instant case on scrutiny of pleading and evidence on record, we feel that the husband-appellant has not come up before the Court below with clean hands for seeking decree of divorce, rather it goes to show that the husband was creating fictitious stories to bring his case within the ambit of cruelty for example; throwing of scissors by wife on parents, administering poison to husband by wife, etc. etc. Such type of petition which is not based on actual facts or discord between husband and wife and is based on false pleading have to severely dealt with, as apart from the fact it builds trauma on the other party. It unnecessarily indulges Courts to involve and spend its valuable time in fishing and roving into the pleading and evidences which are based on concocted false stories. 24. Not only this in the instant case the husband had gone to the extent of producing oral witnesses, who were apart from being interested witnesses, were tutored witness also. This type of conduct is deprecated. 25. The concept of cruelty necessary for dissolution of marriage, does not envisage developing of a false case with intent to mislead the Court and procure decree of divorce. It has to be based upon true and actual circumstances and incidences which has chanced between them and has to be as per the norms of cruelty settled by constitutional Courts as to what could be termed as cruelty. This Court intended to impose heavy cost but however has resisted itself from doing so. 26. Even on perusal of the allegations they do not attach any sanctity nor they have any basis and rather it seems that it was developed by the husband only for the purposes of to get the marriage dissolved. This Court intended to impose heavy cost but however has resisted itself from doing so. 26. Even on perusal of the allegations they do not attach any sanctity nor they have any basis and rather it seems that it was developed by the husband only for the purposes of to get the marriage dissolved. Thus this Court feels that the husband who was seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has failed to establish cruelty before the learned Court below and in the absence of there being proof of cruelty this Court while appreciating the oral statement has rightly come to the conclusion that under the given set of circumstances the marriage cannot be resolved and rightly dismissed the suit. 27. Thus this Court feels that the appellant has utterly failed to establish the case and hence the Court below rightly dismissed the Suit. Hence the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.