JUDGMENT Vasanti A Naik, J. (Oral) - By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 31.07.2017 allowing the petition filed by the respondent-husband for the decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. Few Facts giving rise to the appeal are stated thus: The appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as "the wife" for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as "the husband") were married at Nagpur as per the Hindu rights and customs on 27.06.2012. Before the marriage, the parties were in love with each other for about four years. The parents of both the wife and the husband agreed for the solemnisation of the marriage and with their consent, the marriage was solemnised in the presence of relatives and friends on 27.06.2012. It is the case of the husband in the petition filed by him for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, that after few months from the marriage, the husband''s father had suffered a heart ailment and was hospitalised for fifteen days. It is pleaded in the petition that it was difficult for the husband to manage the hospital, office as well as the newly married wife and hence he was not able to give much time to her. It is pleaded that the wife had expressed her anguish and displeasure on that count and had left the company of the husband and went to reside with her parents. It is pleaded that the husband went to bring her back but she steadfastly refused to return. It is pleaded that the wife told the husband that she was not willing to cohabit with him in the joint family. It is pleaded that though the husband told the wife that they would construct a house on a plot purchased by him and live together, the wife was not in a mood to accept the suggestion. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the wife had resided with the husband only for a couple of months and the parties are living separately for more than six years since then. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the wife had resided with the husband only for a couple of months and the parties are living separately for more than six years since then. Before the husband filed the petition seeking a decree of divorce, the wife had filed a petition under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration that the marriage is a nullity as the consent of the wife was secured by playing fraud upon the wife and her family members. It is pleaded that in the petition filed by the wife for the annulment of marriage, she had levelled allegations against the husband and his family members in regard to the ill-treatment meted out to her for not bringing gifts and valuable articles from her parents. It is pleaded that the petition filed by the wife was dismissed vide order dated 1.8.2014. It is pleaded that the wife does not wish to cohabit with the husband and has deserted him without any just and reasonable excuse. It is pleaded that the wife always wished that the husband should leave his family members and he should reside in a nuclear family. It is pleaded that the wife had made false allegations in the petition filed by her for the declaration pertaining to annulment of the marriage and the said allegations have caused great pain and agony to the husband, the husband therefore sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. The wife filed the written statement and denied the claim of the husband. It was pleaded by the wife that she hails from a middle class family and she was very well aware about the responsibilities of a daughter-in-law. The wife pleaded that she treated her husband and her in-laws in a proper manner and had prepared the tiffin for the father of the husband. It is pleaded that though the wife wished to cohabit with the husband and wanted to save the marriage, she was constrained to reside separately as the husband used to abuse her in a filthy language and beat her mercilessly. The wife pleaded that during the pendency of the petition filed by her for annulment of the marriage, there was a settlement between the parties and she had joined the company of the husband but due to his ill-treatment she had again left the matrimonial home. The wife pleaded that during the pendency of the petition filed by her for annulment of the marriage, there was a settlement between the parties and she had joined the company of the husband but due to his ill-treatment she had again left the matrimonial home. The wife pleaded that though she wished to reside with the husband, the husband did not permit her to reside in the matrimonial home. In the specific pleadings, the wife pleaded that the husband had a private job and only with a view to grab the money from the parents of the wife, he had made a show that he was in love with the wife before their marriage. It is pleaded that the husband threatened her on telephone that he would kill her and therefore she has filed the report in that regard in Nandanvan Police Station. It is pleaded that the husband had fraudulently obtained the decree of divorce and was fixing his marriage with another lady and hence she had to file a report against him in the Police Station. The wife sought for the dismissal of the petition. 4. The husband entered into the witness box and narrated the facts pleaded by him in the petition for divorce. Nothing was brought out from the cross-examination of the husband to disbelieve his case in the examination-in-chief. The husband had denied the suggestion that on the next day of the marriage, his mother had slapped the wife. He had denied the suggestion that the wife was doing all the household work including cooking. The husband has denied that the father of the wife had paid a sum of Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs to him, from time to time and that he was frequently making a demand for money. The husband admitted that they had resumed cohabitation for a few days during the pendency of the petition filed by the wife for the annulment of marriage. The husband denied the suggestion that the wife of his friend, namely, Gaurav Chawla always visits his house. The husband denied the suggestion that he had illicit relationship with the wife of Gaurav Chawla. The husband denied the suggestion that he provided money for the upkeep for the house of Gaurav Chawla. The husband denied that he had offered apology to Gaurav Chawla and had agreed that he would not meet Gaurav Chawla''s wife again. The husband denied the suggestion that he had illicit relationship with the wife of Gaurav Chawla. The husband denied the suggestion that he provided money for the upkeep for the house of Gaurav Chawla. The husband denied that he had offered apology to Gaurav Chawla and had agreed that he would not meet Gaurav Chawla''s wife again. The husband denied that he was paying money to Gaurav Chawla. The husband denied that due to the wife of Gaurav Chawala he was harassing his wife. The husband denied that he had concealed the affair between him and the wife of Gaurav Chawla from his wife. The husband denied that he had married only with a view to extract money. The husband denied that the wife had brought money from her parents to give it to the husband. 5. The husband examined Sharmila Chatterjee who was acquainted with the family members of the husband. The said witness stated in her examination-in-chief that the wife resided with the husband only for a few days though their marriage was a love marriage. She stated in her evidence that the wife''s behaviour towards her husband and his family members was not good, that she was adamant and that she used to pick up quarrels with the husband on petty issues. Nothing is brought out from the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve her case in the examination-in-chief. Sharmila Chatterjee admitted in her cross-examination that she had not attended the marriage of the husband and the wife as she was at Uttarakhand at the relevant time. Sharmila denied the suggestion that she had informed the parents of the wife about the assault on the wife by the husband. The husband examined Gaurvav Chawla as his witness. Gaurav Chawla stated in his examination-in-chief that he was well acquainted with the family members of the husband and they are respectable, religious and pious persons. It was stated by him that the members of the family of the husband are commanding great respect in their community. He had stated that the wife used to quarrel with her husband and in-laws in filthy language and used to abuse them. Gaurav Chawla denied in his cross-examination that his wife had instructed him to give evidence in favour of the husband. He denied the suggestion that he had the habit of interfering in the personal life of the appellant. He had stated that the wife used to quarrel with her husband and in-laws in filthy language and used to abuse them. Gaurav Chawla denied in his cross-examination that his wife had instructed him to give evidence in favour of the husband. He denied the suggestion that he had the habit of interfering in the personal life of the appellant. He denied the suggestion that due to his private job he does not know as to what happens in his house behind his back. He denied the suggestion that there was a quarrel between him and the husband and due to intervention of his wife, he had withdrawn the report. He denied the suggestion that the husband frequently visits his house. The husband examined Jagdish Shewate, his father. The father of the husband tendered evidence in regard to the bad behaviour of his daughter-in law. He had stated that she used to pick up quarrels with the husband and all his family members and she always told the husband that she was not ready to continue the marital relationship. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of this witness that would falsify his evidence in his examination-in-chief. He had denied the suggestion that for her surgery the wife''s father had given money. He denied the suggestion that the wife took his care when he was admitted in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that on the second day of the marriage, the husband had slapped the wife. He also denied the suggestion that the marriage between his son and daughter-in-law was performed with a view to extract money from the parents of the wife. 6. The wife examined herself and narrated the facts stated by her in her pleadings in the affidavit in lieu of the examination-in-chief. The wife was cross-examined on behalf of the husband. The wife admitted in her cross-examination that she was acquainted with the husband from 2008-09. She further admitted that she had filed a petition for annulment of marriage in September/October-2012 in the Family Court and the said petition was dismissed. The wife admitted that the order dismissing the petition for nullity of marriage was never challenged by her. The wife stated that within 8 to 10 days of the marriage, the husband had made the demand for money. The wife admitted that the order dismissing the petition for nullity of marriage was never challenged by her. The wife stated that within 8 to 10 days of the marriage, the husband had made the demand for money. She admitted that she does not remember how much amount was demanded from her on the first occasion. She had admitted that she does not remember the date, month and year in which the husband demanded the money from her. The wife volunteered that whenever the quarrels took place, the husband demanded money from her. The wife admitted that it was correctly stated in paragraph 4 of her affidavit that she had realised that the husband had married her only for money and therefore, she had filed the petition for annulment of marriage. The wife admitted that she has not filed a petition against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife denied that she came from a rich parental family and therefore she cannot stay with the petitioner in the matrimonial home. 7. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the issues and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The judgment of the Family Court is challenged by the wife in this appeal. 8. Shri Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the wife submitted that even as per the judgment of the Family Court, the husband was not able to prove his case that the wife had treated him with cruelty on the basis of the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the Family Court has granted undue weightage to the suggestions givens to the husband and Gaurav Chawla in their cross-examination to hold that the wife had levelled reckless allegations against the husband in regard to his character by referring to an affair of the husband with Gaurav Chawla''s wife. It is stated that the wife had not pleaded about any illicit relationship between the husband and Gaurav Chawla''s wife in the written statement. It is stated that the wife had also not alleged about such a relationship in the evidence that she had tendered on affidavit. It is stated that the wife had not pleaded about any illicit relationship between the husband and Gaurav Chawla''s wife in the written statement. It is stated that the wife had also not alleged about such a relationship in the evidence that she had tendered on affidavit. It is stated that merely because the counsel for the wife had posed certain questions while cross-examining the husband and his witness Gaurav Chawla, which made a reference to an affair between the husband and Gaurav Chawla''s wife, the wife cannot be made to suffer. It is submitted that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 334 (Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate) would not be applicable to the case in hand as in that case several reckless allegations in regard to an extra marital affair were made against the spouse in the written statement and the said allegations were not proved by tendering oral evidence. It is submitted that in the facts of that case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court had held that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty as she had failed to prove the reckless allegations against the husband that had the effect of assassinating his character. It is submitted that this not being the case in which the wife has levelled allegations against the husband in the written statement in regard to his character and since the questions pertaining to the affair of the husband with Gaurav Chawla''s wife were posed to him only in his cross-examination and in the cross-examination of Gaurav Chawla, it cannot be said that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty. It is submitted that the Family Court committed a serious error in relying on the part of the evidence of the husband and Gaurav Chawla in their cross-examination that was based on some suggestions given by the counsel for the wife to answer some of the issues in favour of the husband. The learned counsel sought for the reversal of the judgment of the Family Court. 9. Shri Bhishikar, the learned counsel for the husband has supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that it would be very hazardous to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the suggestions given by a counsel to the witnesses cannot affect his client. 9. Shri Bhishikar, the learned counsel for the husband has supported the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that it would be very hazardous to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the suggestions given by a counsel to the witnesses cannot affect his client. It is stated that aspersions were cast on the character of the husband by posing queries to the husband and Gaurav Chawla in their cross-examination pertaining to an illicit relationship between the husband and Gaurav Chawla''s wife without any pleadings. It is submitted that the Family Court has rightly considered this aspect of the matter to hold that the husband has clearly proved that the wife has treated him with cruelty. It is submitted that apart from the said fact, the wife had levelled several allegations against the husband in the petition filed by her under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the annulment of marriage and while dismissing the said petition by a reasoned judgment, the Family Court had observed that the wife had failed to prove the allegations levelled against the husband in the said petition. It is submitted that though the wife had pleaded in the written statement that she had belonged to a middle class family and that she had a love affair for four years, she had falsely pleaded that the husband had married with her only with a view to grab money from her parents. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the petition. 10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record and the proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this Family Court Appeal. (i) Whether the husband has proved that the wife has treated him with cruelty.? (ii) Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce.? (iii) What order .? 11. To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. In the earlier part of the judgment, we have narrated the pleadings of the parties and have also narrated the facts stated by the parties and their witnesses in their evidence. (iii) What order .? 11. To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. In the earlier part of the judgment, we have narrated the pleadings of the parties and have also narrated the facts stated by the parties and their witnesses in their evidence. It appears from the evidence tendered by the parties that the Family Court was justified in allowing the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is necessary to note that the marriage between the husband and the wife was not an arranged marriage but was a love marriage. The husband and the wife knew each other and had an affair for about 3 to 4 years before the solemnisation of the marriage. After the marriage, the wife hardly stayed with the husband for a period of two months and left the matrimonial home to reside with her parents. Since then, except for a few days when the wife resided with the husband during the pendency of the proceedings filed by her for annulment of marriage in view of the settlement between the parties, she is residing separately. Though the marriage between the parties was a love marriage, it appears that love turned sour immediately within a couple of months from the date of solemnisation of the marriage. 12. We have perused the judgment in the petition filed by the wife for a decree of annulment of the marriage. In the said petition, the wife had levelled several allegations against the husband as if the husband had treated her with cruelty. The petition filed by the wife was however dismissed after observing that the wife had failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against the husband. It was the case of the wife in the petition filed by her for the nullity of marriage and it is also the case of the wife in the petition filed by the husband for a decree of divorce that the husband had married her with a view to extract money from her parents. The pleadings of the wife and the evidence tendered by her would clearly falsify this case. In the pleadings in the written statement of the wife, the wife had clearly stated that she belonged to a middle class family. The pleadings of the wife and the evidence tendered by her would clearly falsify this case. In the pleadings in the written statement of the wife, the wife had clearly stated that she belonged to a middle class family. The wife has also denied the suggestion in her cross-examination that because she belongs to a financially affluent family, she could not cope up with the husband and reside happily with him. The pleadings of the wife in the written statement and her admission in the cross-examination would show that the wife does not belong to a financially affluent family. It is not in dispute that the parties were in love with each other for quite sometime. It is therefore not permissible to believe in these set of facts that the husband had married the wife with a view to extract money from her parents though the wife, even according to her, claimed to belong to a middle class family. We find that the husband has categorically pleaded in the petition and has also tendered evidence to show that the wife wanted to reside separately in a nuclear family and always expressed her anguish and displeasure as she was not able to reside with the husband separately and the husband did not give her much time after the marriage as the father of the husband was ill and he was in the hospital. It is the case of the husband that the wife had ill-treated the husband and his family members. The husband has heavily relied on the dismissal of the petition filed by the wife for annulment of marriage on the ground that she has failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against him. We have time and again held that the conduct on the part of a wife to pester her husband to leave his old family members for residing separately with his wife would tantamount to cruelty. Though much has been said on behalf of the wife that the husband has not proved his case on the basis of his pleadings, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Family Court that the husband has proved that the wife had treated him with cruelty by levelling false and baseless allegations against him while he was cross-examined. Though much has been said on behalf of the wife that the husband has not proved his case on the basis of his pleadings, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Family Court that the husband has proved that the wife had treated him with cruelty by levelling false and baseless allegations against him while he was cross-examined. It is necessary to note that during the cross-examination it was suggested to the husband that the wife of Gaurav Chawla always visited his house and that he has an illicit relationship with the wife of Gaurav Chawla. A suggestion was also given to the husband that he provides money for maintaining the house of Gaurav Chawla. A suggestion was given to the husband that he had apologised to Gaurav Chawla that he would not meet his wife again. A further suggestion was given to the husband that he was paying money to Gaurav Chawla and due to the wife of Gaurav Chawla, he had harassed his wife. A further suggestion was given to the husband that he had concealed his affair between him and the wife of Gaurav Chawla from his house. These suggestions were specifically denied by the husband in his cross-examination. When the husband desired to examine Gaurav Chawla as one of the witnesses in the matter, it was very wrongful on the part of the wife and/or her counsel to pose such questions to her husband and his friend in the cross-examination which would cast aspersions on his character. It was very wrongful on the part of the wife to pose such questions to the husband through her counsel in the cross-examination. The wife has clearly cast aspersions on the husband by alleging illicit relationship between the wife of Gaurav Chawla and her husband without alleging a word in this regard, in her written statement. If the wife had not alleged these facts in the written statement, it was not permissible for the wife to pose such questions to the husband in the cross-examination and also to prove the same. However, without alleging any such relationship in the written statement, the wife suggested to the husband about the illicit relationship with Gaurav Chawla''s wife and took him by surprise. Not only were such questions posed to the husband in his cross-examination but when Gaurav Chawla was cross-examined, similar suggestions were also given to him. However, without alleging any such relationship in the written statement, the wife suggested to the husband about the illicit relationship with Gaurav Chawla''s wife and took him by surprise. Not only were such questions posed to the husband in his cross-examination but when Gaurav Chawla was cross-examined, similar suggestions were also given to him. It was suggested to Gaurav Chawla that he was tendering evidence only on the say of his wife. It was suggested to Gaurav Chawla that due to his private job he did not know what was going on in his house behind his back. Such a suggestion had surely a different colour in the backdrop of the suggestions given by the counsel of the wife to the husband and Gaurav Chawla in their cross-examination. The act on the part of the wife of speaking of the husband''s relationship with Gaurav Chawla''s wife would surely tantamount to cruelty. 13. We are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the wife that since these suggestions were not given by the wife and were given by the counsel and since the wife had not pleaded in this regard in the written statement and had also not alleged so in her examination-in-chief, the suggestions given by her counsel to the husband and Gaurav Chawla would not affect the wife. It is not possible that a counsel will pose queries to a witness about his illicit relationship with another women unless he is informed about the same by his client. In any case, the wife should have taken some corrective measure if she had really thought that her counsel had unnecessarily given such suggestions to her husband. We find that the suggestions were not only given to the husband but also Gaurav Chawla who was examined much later. The Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty by casting aspersions on his character without any pleadings. It would not be permissible for a party to allege that his/her spouse had illicit relationship with another man/woman in the evidence though there is no pleading in this regard. In fact, such a case would be worse. Without any pleadings it would not be permissible for a party to allege that his/her spouse has an illicit relationship with another man/woman. In fact, such a case would be worse. Without any pleadings it would not be permissible for a party to allege that his/her spouse has an illicit relationship with another man/woman. Such unwarranted suggestions were not only given to the husband but also given to his friend Gaurav Chawla, who had entered into the witness box to depose in favour of the husband and against the wife. The Family Court has rightly considered this aspect of the matter to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty by claiming that he had an illicit relationship with Gaurav Chawla''s wife though she did not plead about the same in her written statement. Apart from this aspect of the matter, we find that the wife had no regard for truth. The wife was acquainted with the husband for four years before marriage and within a couple of months from the marriage she had separated from him. She did not stop at that, but filed a petition against him for annulment of marriage under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act by making such allegations in the said petition that would be necessary for seeking a divorce on the ground of cruelty. Several allegations are made against the husband by the wife in the petition for annulment of marriage to show as to how the husband had ill treated her. The wife has failed to prove the allegations and her petition for annulment of marriage is dismissed. The judgment dismissing the petition filed by the wife for annulment of marriage has attained finality as the wife has not challenged the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record, the Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. In respect of the arrogant and adamant behaviour of the wife, the husband has not only examined himself but has also examined Gaurav Chawla, Sharimila Chatterji and his father, who has also entered into the witness box to depose in favour of his son. In the cross-examination of none of these witnesses, the evidence tendered by them in their examination-in-chief is shaken. We do not find any reason for interference with the judgment of the Family Court granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. In the cross-examination of none of these witnesses, the evidence tendered by them in their examination-in-chief is shaken. We do not find any reason for interference with the judgment of the Family Court granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. The Family Court has rightly relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court from time to time to hold that levelling of allegations against the spouse in regard to the character and failing to prove the same would tantamount to cruelty. This is a novel case where without any allegations in the pleadings it is expressed during the tendering of evidence that the husband has illicit relationship with another woman. We do not find that the husband had married the wife with a view to extract money from her parents as she belongs to an ordinary middle class family even as per her case in the written statement. Even on this day the wife is ready for a divorce but she is claiming of huge amount. The very fact that the wife filed a petition for annulment of marriage against the husband clearly shows that the wife did not wish to reside with her husband as she desired that the marriage solemnised between them should be declared a nullity. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the Family Court Appeal with no order as to costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks a stay of this judgment for a period of ten weeks. The prayer is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, in the circumstances of the case, the judgment may not be given effect to, for a period of ten weeks. Order accordingly.