JUDGMENT Ritu Bahri, J. - CM-6095-CII-2019 1. Application is allowed and Annexures R-1 and R-2 are taken on record. FAO-20-M-2006 2. The appellant, Leena has come up in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2006 passed by the Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby a petition filed by respondent-Sunil Gupta under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955) was allowed and he was granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 26.11.1995 as per their customary rites and ceremonies. After their marriage both the parties resided together as husband and wife at Jagadhri and three male children were born. Divorce petition was instituted by the respondent-husband alleging that the behaviour of the appellant-wife towards him was non-cooperative. She was quarrelsome lady and used to give merciless beatings to the minor children. She compelled the respondent-husband to leave for Karnal. On 08.03.2003, when the respondent-husband was on his shop, he was informed by neighbourers that the appellant-wife had given beatings to the youngest infant child mercilessly. He rushed to the house and found that the youngest son lying unconscious whereas she was sleeping inside. She humiliated the respondent-husband by saying that he is not a man of her choice and he is an impotent person. Since 10.08.2003, she is residing at her parental house. 4. After notice, the appellant-wife filed written statement denying the allegations and also raised allegation that she was harassed on account of bringing less dowry. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty so as to dissolve the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form on account of suppression of facts and without cause of action? OPR 3. Relief. 6. After examining the evidence led by the parties, the Family Court returned a finding on issue No.1 in favour of the respondenthusband. As per the statements of PW2-Vinod Chawla, Advocate and PW3-Atul Garg, the appellant-wife used to visit the shop of the respondenthusband and humiliated him. When anybody wanted to have reason with her, she used to threaten and abuse him. As per the statements of PW2-Vinod Chawla, Advocate and PW3-Atul Garg, the appellant-wife used to visit the shop of the respondenthusband and humiliated him. When anybody wanted to have reason with her, she used to threaten and abuse him. She was also taken to a psychiatrist, as per own case which shows that there was some mental problem with her. The appellant-wife caused mental cruelty to the respondent-husband. Keeping in view the allegations of the respondent-husband, duly corroborated by other witnesses, divorce petition was allowed. 7. During the pendency of the present appeal, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has placed on record copy of FIR No. 220 dated 25.03.2006 under Sections 406/498-A/323/506/34 IPC as Annexure R-1 and the judgment dated 03.02.2010 passed by this Court in Crl.Misc. No. 1564 of 2007 titled as Sunil Gupta and another vs. State of Haryana and another as Annexure R-2 whereby the proceedings initiated in the said FIR were quashed by this Court as the date on which the demand of dowry was made, she was not in the house of the respondent-husband. 8. At this juncture, it is important to make reference to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja, Civil Appeal No.10719 of 2013, decided on 24.04.2017, wherein, it was observed that a false complaint was registered against the husband by the wife, after wife herself inflicted injuries on her body. In criminal proceedings, the husband had been acquitted and thereafter, proceedings against the wife were launched. On this account, the husband was held entitled to decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty. It was further observed as herein given:- '9. This Court in Para 16 of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa,2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 232 has held as follows: '16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511 , we could add a few more. It was further observed as herein given:- '9. This Court in Para 16 of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa,2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 232 has held as follows: '16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511 , we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.' In Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 178, this Court while dealing with the definition of cruelty held as follows: '19. It may be true that there is no definition of cruelty under the said Act. Actually such a definition is not possible. In matrimonial relationship, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between the spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to arious outbursts of behaviour which can be termed as cruelty. Sometime cruelty in a matrimonial relationship may take the form of violence, sometime it may take a different form. At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. 20. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. Whether the husband is cruel to his wife or the wife is cruel to her husband has to be ascertained and judged by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the given case and not by any predetermined rigid formula. Cruelty in matrimonial cases can be of infinite variety-it may be subtle or even brutal and may be by gestures and words. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon, (1966) 2 WLR 993 held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed. 10. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. That possibly explains why Lord Denning in Sheldon v. Sheldon, (1966) 2 WLR 993 held that categories of cruelty in matrimonial cases are never closed. 10. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short 'the Act'). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under Section 182 of IPC." 9. Even making one false complaint against the other spouse would amount to cruelty. In the present case, an FIR No. 220 dated 25.03.2006 under Sections 406/498-A/323/506/34 IPC (Annexure R-1) was filed against the respondent-husband which was not found to be correct and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 03.02.2010 passed by this Court in Crl.Misc. No. 1564 of 2007 (Annexure R-2). 10. Keeping in view of above, no ground to interfere in judgment and decree dated 16.01.2006 passed by the Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is made out. 11. Appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.