JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Alleging acts constituting mental cruelty, the appellant sought annulment of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 29.10.2009. It was pleaded that the respondent left the matrimonial house on 23.12.2009 and that during the period between the date of the marriage and the respondent leaving the matrimonial house the respondent evinced characteristic of mental disorder. She would always remain angry and would abuse the appellant and his parents. She would threaten to lodge false cases against them. On 1.1.2010 the respondent lodged a false complaint under Section 498A/406 IPC against the appellant and his parents. She filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act and initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. That in the complaint for offences punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC the appellant was sent to prison. 2. In the written statement filed the respondent denied the allegations made against her and pleaded that on account of not fulfilling the illegal demand for dowry she was thrown out of the matrimonial house and as regards the proceedings initiating by her under the Domestic Violence Act, Cr.P.C. and for return of the istridhan she pleaded that law conferred said rights on her. 3. Needless to state that the only issue which came to be settled was whether the respondent had committed acts of cruelty entitling the appellant to a decree for divorce. 4. At the trial the appellant examined only himself as his witness and so did the respondent. 5. In his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit the appellant stated on oath the facts which he pleaded in the petition seeking divorce. But, on cross-examination admitted the suggestion that during the period the respondent lived in the matrimonial house no quarrel took place between the two and that it was correct that during said period the respondent's conduct towards him was fine. He admitted that he did not have any evidence to support his plea that the respondent's mental condition was not proper. 6. Interestingly, the appellant introduced the story during cross-examination containing the reason why the respondent left the matrimonial house. He stated that the respondent's father was a drunkard. A fact not pleaded in the petition seeking divorce was stated by him during cross-examination, that one day the respondent consumed sleeping pills; but admitted that he had no proof for the same. 7. He stated that the respondent's father was a drunkard. A fact not pleaded in the petition seeking divorce was stated by him during cross-examination, that one day the respondent consumed sleeping pills; but admitted that he had no proof for the same. 7. Notwithstanding the respondent not having taken any plea in her written statement that the appellant was having some kind of a relationship with a girl named Vidushi, a suggestion was put to the appellant by the respondent's counsel that he was maintaining some kind of relationship with a girl named Vidushi. He denied the same. He also denied the suggestion that Vidushi was pressurizing the appellant to obtain a divorce. He denied the suggestion that for said reason he was seeking divorce. He admitted that Vidushi had lodged an FIR against him for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. He stated that Vidushi was the cousin sister of the respondent. 8. Relevant would it be to highlight that the line of cross-examination concerning facts as noted in para 7 above was outside the pleadings of both parties. 9. In her examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit the respondent stated the facts as pleaded by her in the written statement and we find that during cross-examination of the respondent, the appellant put suggestions to the respondent that since her father was drunkard and her sisters were married she wanted to go to her parental house to look after her father. Needless to state that she denied the same. Interestingly, the respondent admitted that once in her matrimonial house she took sleeping pills. In cross-examination she stated that she read in the newspaper some report regarding appellant and Vidushi. 10. Giving reasons that the suggestions and admissions during cross-examination which were outside the pleadings of the parties had to be ignored and highlighting the admission made by the appellant in cross-examination and that for the period the respondent resided in the matrimonial house there was no dispute between the couple and the respondent's attitude towards appellant was good, the petition seeking divorce filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 11. From a narration of the facts noted by us hereinabove it emerges that in the petition seeking divorce the only case pleaded by the appellant was that on account of being mentally disturbed the respondent would constantly fight with him and his parents. She would abuse them. 11. From a narration of the facts noted by us hereinabove it emerges that in the petition seeking divorce the only case pleaded by the appellant was that on account of being mentally disturbed the respondent would constantly fight with him and his parents. She would abuse them. This case he himself demolished when he made admissions in the cross-examination which admissions we have noted hereinabove. Thus, it has to be held that the appellant failed to prove the case set up by him. 12. Whilst it may be true that during cross-examination of both parties it emerges that the actual probable reason for the matrimonial discord is the girl named Vidushi, but unfortunately neither party laid any foundation in their pleadings regarding Vidushi. The appellant did not plead that the respondent starting alleging against him that he was having some relations with Vidushi and therefore she left the matrimonial house on said false reason. Likewise, the respondent did not plead that she had to leave the matrimonial house due to the appellant's relationship with Vidushi. 13. It is settled law that there cannot be any variance between the pleadings and proof. 14. The appellant had to succeed on the strength of the case pleaded by him. He had to prove the case pleaded by him. The appellant could not make out a different case. 15. The appeal is dismissed.