JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The appellant is the husband/plaintiff in the Suit instituted by him for seeking dissolution of marriage, which is said to have been solemnized with the defendant (respondent herein) on 17.02.2001, at Kaulagarh, District Pauri Garhwal. The marriage between them was solemnized in accordance to the Hindu rites and rituals, as both of them were the followers of the Hindu religion. Out of the wedlock a daughter Mallika Joshi was born, who at the time of institution of case was of only about 3 years of age. 2. According to the plaint’s case, the husband submitted that he was employed in Pant Nagar University in the Forestry department and since he being highly qualified, he also operates a self-financed institution in the filed of agriculture itself. 3. The case of the appellant was that for the purposes of undertaking work of his self financed institution, for which, he undertakes the work of providing plants for their plantation in various areas as per their demand, he produces plants/saplings and distributes the same in various villages of State of Uttarakhand for their plantation in the remote areas of the districts. He contends that for the purposes of undertaking the said work of his self financed institution and for the purposes of ensuring that the plant reaches its place in safe condition, he for discharging his responsibility towards his institution has to stay out for a considerable long period to ensure that the plants, which were grown in his nursery are actually planted at their respective places. 4. According to the husband to coordinate his work of forestry and rural development, he undertook the plantation of about 700 hectares of land in Gram Panchayat Dadoli, Patti Chauthan, District Pauri Garhwal. To assist him in his work, in undertaking the task, he has to coordinate his activities with various authorities including Government department and private sector etc. According to the plaint averment, he, for execution of the work had conducted SCF, DFO and other five units in which social forestry work are being performed on regular basis. 5. For these activities, his case was that he gets the work partially executed through a social worker named as Kumari Deepa Joshi, who used to discharge social work through the forest Surpanch of Forest Panchayat, Mr. Mohan Singh Bisht. 5. For these activities, his case was that he gets the work partially executed through a social worker named as Kumari Deepa Joshi, who used to discharge social work through the forest Surpanch of Forest Panchayat, Mr. Mohan Singh Bisht. This professional relationship of the appellant with the Deepa Joshi which was confined to enforcement of the projects was taken by his institution was taken in an adverse interpretation by the wife as if there was an illicit relation which was gradually being established by the husband with her. 6. It was under that pretext the wife used to create disturbances in the family, it was the husband’s case that he tried to console her and even tried to convince her that the notion which she has drawn that he is living with Deepa Joshi is absolutely incorrect. But it is the case of the husband that when she did not accede to the said consolation given by him, he had no option except to drop her to her parent’s home at Haldwani. But her aptitude of creating difficulty for the appellant did not ceased and she used to consistently give calls to the husband, disturbing his life and thus the husband’s case is that he took a room in Gairsain and he shifted to that place. But this also did not end his problem often she used to make the issues of Deepa Joshi as an issue of public discussion and thereby humiliating him in public. 7. It chanced so that on 13.08.2004, when the appellant-husband was discharging his work towards his institution got delayed in reaching home, the wife straightway reached Gairsain, the place where he was executing the work and started misbehaving with Deepa Joshi, abusing her and leveled all type of filthy allegations against her and even they entered into physical altercations. 8. The husband felt highly too because of the incident which has chanced at Gairsain on 13.08.2004, wherein she requested the villagers to throw the husband out of village and not to permit his entry because of the relationship which he was having with Deepa Joshi, she also threatened that she will ruin the life of the husband as well as of Deepa Joshi and would entrap them in criminal cases. All these incidents became too torturous for the husband and he contends that the threats which was consistently given by the wife to the effect that she will be consuming sleeping pills and commit suicide, hence he pleaded that the matrimony between them became irretrievable and for the purpose to safeguard his future and his career too. He felt that the dissolution of marriage is the only recourse, hence he instituted the suit on 12.07.2005 for dissolution of marriage. 9. The respondent-wife had put in appearance and filed her written statement before the learned family Court, denying the plaint allegation about cruelty exerted by her. She admitted the fact about the nature of the work in which the husband is involved, pertaining to the operation of nursery and the supply of plantations and pertaining to the plantation activities being carried out by him in various parts of the State. She submitted that under the garb of his official engagements, he is also deliberately staying out of home for the fulfillment of his illegal activities and to satisfy his illegal relationship with Deepa Joshi. She submitted that the relationship which the husband is having with Deepa Joshi was the reason why that he has used to overstay the places where his work was being carried. 10. Rest of the contents of the plaint was denied but what is relevant in the instant case are additional plea taken by respondent-wife. In the additional plea the wife has taken the ground that the husband is in the habit of being attracted to the females and is quite often entangled with relationship with different females and she also contended that she has come to know that even prior to his marriage, he was in relationship with Shanti and she has also come to the knowledge of her though at a later stage that he was married with Shanti to whom later on he has given divorce. 11. She further in her written statement submitted that the workplace of the petitioner is Village Maletha in Kirti Nagar Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, whereas Deepa Joshi works in Dadoli, Thaili Sain but under the pretext of the projects being enforced in the said area, the appellant lives at Dadoli and to achieve aim of spending time with Deepa Joshi, that object the case of the wife is that she was left at her parent’s home at Haldwani. She alleged that on 23.03.2004 when the wife went to Maletha and visited the place where her husband was staying as tenant she was informed by the landlord that the husband has left the tenanted accommodation and he has shifted to Gairsain, where Deepa Joshi used to visit and the husband has taken the entire households of Deepa Joshi too to Gairsain. 12. According to the plea raised by wife was that she after taking her father-in-law visited Gairsain had found that the father of the Deepa Joshi and Deepa Joshi herself were present in the residence of the appellant-husband. She contended that this relationship of the appellant-husband with Deepa Joshi is the sole reason why the husband is making out grounds to get away with respondent-wife and to get the marriage dissolved so that he may succeed in solemnizing his marriage with Deepa Joshi with whom according to wife, he enjoys an illicit relation. She pleaded that the relationship between the appellant-husband and Deepa Joshi had crossed all limits of social decency and both of them are not fearful and do not have any sensitivity towards the society and the discussion which are being carried on in the society against them, this is not only spoiling the image of the husband but also the family as well as the respondent. 13. During the pendency of the proceedings after the exchange of the pleadings, a transfer application was filed before the High Court being Civil Transfer Application No. 21 of 2005 and the proceedings of divorce petition was transferred by the High Court’s order dated 03.07.2007 and thereafter the following issues were framed:- 1- D;k mRrjnkrk us ;kph ds lkFk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k\ 2- D;k mRrjnkrk us ;kph dks >wBs okn esa Qalkus dh /kedh nh\ 3- D;k ;kph ;kfpr vuqrks’k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 14. In support of his contention, the appellant appeared in the witness box recorded his statement as PW1 and submitted his affidavit in examination in chief. Similarly he also produced the documentary evidences paper No. 8 Ga, the letter and other supporting documents. For example; notice issued by Deepa Joshi, notice issued by the Member State Women’s Commission etc. In support of his contention, the appellant appeared in the witness box recorded his statement as PW1 and submitted his affidavit in examination in chief. Similarly he also produced the documentary evidences paper No. 8 Ga, the letter and other supporting documents. For example; notice issued by Deepa Joshi, notice issued by the Member State Women’s Commission etc. Whereas on the other hand, the respondent-wife apart from recording her oral statement as DW-1 has submitted her affidavit in examination in chief and produced the documents paper No 86 GA/1 and 86 Ga/2 i.e. the photographs in a sealed envelop paper No. 86 Ga/5. The learned trial Court decided both the issues by consolidating them together. First issue pertaining to the cruelty and second issue was as to whether the respondent-wife has threatened the husband to rope him in false criminal cases. 15. While dealing with the pleading of the husband learned Trial Court considered that according to the arguments extended by the respondent though it was reiteration of the facts as pleaded in the plain but in the cross-examination, the husband has contended that Uma Joshi (respondent herein) happens to be his second wife and it was recorded in the findings that he further admitted the fact that while he was getting the work enforced of plantation at Maletha, Kirti Nagar in 2003, he submitted the fact that his wife stayed with him there. He in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he has met Deepa Joshi in 2002 at the time when she was the member of Zila Panchayat, Dadoli. In his examination in chief if scrutinized what is relevant is that therein he has submitted that Uma Joshi had resided with him at Thaili Sain, Dadoli, for six months and thereafter she left the place and went to Haldwani. In his cross-examination, he admitted that when he has shifted from Maletha to Gairsain, ^^mek tks”kh esjs lkFk Fkh** . 16. Learned family Court has also taken note of the fact that the appellant has stated on oath that for getting his official work executed, Deepa Joshi used to help him and in relation to the work when he visited Nainital, they had stayed together and husband-appellant and Deepa Joshi had gone for boating. 16. Learned family Court has also taken note of the fact that the appellant has stated on oath that for getting his official work executed, Deepa Joshi used to help him and in relation to the work when he visited Nainital, they had stayed together and husband-appellant and Deepa Joshi had gone for boating. This fact in itself is sufficient to show that it is an admitted case of the appellant that he was in close relationship with Deepa Joshi. In the affidavit as produced by respondent-wife which contained four photographs along with their negatives which showed that the appellant was along with Deepa Joshi and the photographs showed the intimacy between Deepa Joshi and the appellant. 17. The fact alleged by the wife that the Deepa Joshi visiting Nainital and going for boating has been admitted by the husband in his statement. Learned family Court rightly so while interpreting the provisions contained under Section 13(1)(i-a) held that for the purpose of getting a decree of divorce, the onus to prove the existence of conditions contained under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of cruelty, desertion, adultery etc. entitling for the decree of divorce has to be established by the party who makes the allegation as to be the basis for divorce. Here in the instant case, the respondent had placed on record the photographs of Deepa Joshi and the appellant in various situations which shows the existence of intimate relation between them. 18. These photographs have not been denied nor any effort has been made by the husband to prove the same contrary to fact justifying the intimacy of the relationship which he enjoys with Deepa Joshi. Thus, the burden of proving of an act for a decree for dissolution of marriage in view of under Section 13(1)(i-a) was to be discharged by the husband to show that wife had committed cruelty which he has failed to do and thus rightly so the decree of divorce was refused. Thus, the burden of proving of an act for a decree for dissolution of marriage in view of under Section 13(1)(i-a) was to be discharged by the husband to show that wife had committed cruelty which he has failed to do and thus rightly so the decree of divorce was refused. Because the husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own deeds and continue an illicit relation and take the decree of divorce for his illegal benefit and since the husband has failed to prove any cruelty having been committed by the wife against him after the marriage and since he has failed to prove any of the grounds existing as contemplated under Section 13(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, dissolving the marriage the learned family Court rightly held that a dissolution of marriage cannot be granted to husband for his own act of cruelty on the grounds which are created by the husband but it could be granted only on the ground when the husband is aggrieved by an act of cruelty, committed by wife and not for his own act of cruelty which has not been established in the present case and thus the learned family Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage. 19. It has been a consistent view of the Courts that whoever comes in a Court for a decree under a given set of circumstances and particularly for a decree of divorce has to discharge his responsibilities to place the actions of the defendant within the framework of the parameters of cruelty given under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, Though the Act or Section 13(1)(i-a) do not itself defined as to what would be the cruelty as the cruelty always happens to be a variating factor depending upon case to case and from circumstances to circumstances. 20. In the case at hand, once the husband has come forward for a dissolution of marriage, alleging cruelty against the respondent, the cruelty has to exercised by other side i.e. wife and not by the plaintiff who seeks decree. It was he who has to prove that there was a cruelty exercised by the wife and not otherwise. Hence this Court feels that there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below, declining the decree of divorce to the appellant. It was he who has to prove that there was a cruelty exercised by the wife and not otherwise. Hence this Court feels that there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below, declining the decree of divorce to the appellant. Thus the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.