JUDGMENT Pathak, J. -- 1. Present appeal under section 19 of Family Court Act 1984 read with section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred as “Act 1955”) is preferred at the instance of defendant / wife being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.9.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Guna whereby application of husband under section 13 of Act 1955 is allowed. The said application is allowed on the point of mental cruelty and therefore, marriage is ordered to be dissolved accordingly. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 1.5.2014, appellant / wife and respondent / husband got married according to Hindu rites and rituals at Guna. After marriage, appellant wanted to continue her education and to appear in competitive examinations, she joined coaching classes. Respondent is a teacher in Government School and as per allegations, after leaving for his school, appellant’s wife used to move around outside their house and whenever interrupted, she raised ruckus and commotion. On 3.12.2014, she fell ill, therefore, taken to District Hospital Guna where she admitted till 7.12.2014. When she did not recover then she was taken to a private hospital where respondent came to know that appellant used to visit hospital earlier also and she suffered abortion two months back. 3. This was the fact which was not in the knowledge of respondent and when inquired, then she quarreled with appellant and ultimately on 24.2.2015, she left her matrimonial home for maternal house. When she did not turn back, then on 13.4.2016, respondent filed an application for divorce against the appellant / defendant on the ground under section 13 (1)(i) and (i)(a) of the Act 1955. Appellant contested the case by filing written statement and denied the allegations. She showed willingness to reside together. 4. On the basis of pleadings, trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidenced led by the parties. After appreciating the pleadings, submissions and evidence led, trial Court allowed the application and issued decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Therefore, wife as appellant is before this Court taking exception to the said decree of divorce. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri N.K.Gupta vehemently detailed out the arguments and submits that respondent / husband sought the decree of divorce on twin grounds of mental cruelty caused by wife and adulterous life led by her. Therefore, wife as appellant is before this Court taking exception to the said decree of divorce. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri N.K.Gupta vehemently detailed out the arguments and submits that respondent / husband sought the decree of divorce on twin grounds of mental cruelty caused by wife and adulterous life led by her. Both the grounds were not available in the facts and circumstances of the case. He referred the evidence surfaced in the case to bring home the facts that appellant never indulged in living adulterous live. He referred Exhibit P-1 which is a medical prescription of appellant which is torn from the right side and thereafter, a date has been written as on 31.5.2014 in which certain medicines have been prescribed to the appellant by Dr. Smt. Sunita Dhakad (PW-3). 6. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that on reference of words (abortion and MTP two months back) was interpolation in the said prescription which has been duly accepted by the concerned doctor when she was cross-examined. Therefore, by interpolation of medical prescription and fabrication of evidence, respondent / husband tried to give an impression to the Court that appellant wife was leading adulterous life and therefore, she had to abort and that caused mental cruelty to the respondent and his family. As submitted, same is not correct. 7. As submitted, appellant is innocent and wants to live in family fold therefore, Court below erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree and reached to the conclusion on half baked truth. He also denied the allegations that she is living as wife of one Ashutosh Pandey who is resident of Village Moharikalan and it was Ashutosh who was responsible for such medical contingency. Learned Senior Counsel denied all such allegations. 8. He also referred the police complaint registered at the instance of appellant because of the fact that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from appellant’s side and ill-treated her resulting into filing another case under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which respondent’s side has been found guilty by the Court below and matter travelled to this Court and criminal revision vide Cr.R.No.767/2021is pending at the instance of husband. 9. 9. Appellant also filed an application under section 45 of Evidence Act, 1995 by which she is ready to appear before the Medical Board of doctors showing her medical condition / innocence. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Shri S.K. Shrivastava, matched the vehemence and rebutted the claim so made. According to husband, not only she led adulterous life for which suitable pleadings and documents were placed, but also she caused mental cruelty to the family members of the appellant by filing false complaints against the respondent and her family members for offence under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. In fact petition for divorce was filed on 5.4.2016 in which on 5.5.2016 appellant/ wife caused her appearance in the Court and immediately thereafter, on 15.5.2016, she lodged FIR as referred above showing the dates of alleged offence between 1.5.2014 i.e. date of marriage to 12.10.2015, the date from which she started living separately. 11. Thereafter, a subsequent FIR vide Crime No.327/2016 was also registered at Police Station Kotawali Guna, for the offence under sections 376 and 511 of IPC against all the family members of husband for committing the offence of attempt to rape and outraging her modesty. 12. Against framing of charge, two criminal revisions against both the orders were filed vide Cr.R No.87/2017 and Cr.R No.447/2017 and both were decided by learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.5.2020 whereby both the revision petitions were allowed and respondent and his family members were discharged from the clutches of prosecution. Thereafter, appellant wife preferred SLP against the said order of discharge vide SLP (Criminal) No.3775/2020 but same was dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2020. Persuasion of appellant wife to implicate respondent/ husband to such extent amounts to mental cruelty. 13. Different applications were filed by the parties to bring additional facts on record by way of different judgments /orders of different Courts as referred above. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents on record. 15. This is the case where appellant wife is taking exception to the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Courts below whereby on the basis of mental cruelty application preferred by the husband is being allowed and decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed. 16. 15. This is the case where appellant wife is taking exception to the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2017 passed by the Courts below whereby on the basis of mental cruelty application preferred by the husband is being allowed and decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed. 16. In the case in hand, allegations of mental cruelty have been raised by the respondent / husband on twin grounds of her integrity and filing of criminal complaints. So far as allegations on the basis of filing of criminal complaints are concerned, it appears that respondent has a valid case where mental cruelty has been inflicted. 17. After solemnization of marriage on 1.5.2014, she lived for a year or so in matrimonial fold. After dispute erupted and when application for divorce was filed by the respondent on 5.4.2016, then she caused her appearance in the Court on 5.5.2016. Immediately thereafter, on 15.5.2016, she lodged FIR under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 against respondent and her family members. Incidentally, she filed a complaint bit belatedly referring the dates of alleged offenece between 1.5.2014 (date of marriage) to 12.10.2015 (when she started living separately) and surprisingly in the said FIR, there is not even a whisper in respect of allegations of committing attempt to rape and outraging her modesty by her brother in law- Rahul Dubey. 18. On 23.6.2016 (after over one month of previous FIR), she lodged another FIR vide Crime No.327/2016 at Police Station Guna Kotwali for offence under sections 376 and 511 of IPC against all the petitioners for committing the offence of attempt to rape and outraging her modesty. Incidentally, in the said FIR, period of incident shown to be from 5.6.2014 to 28.2.2015. In the said FIR, incident of attempt to rape by her brother-inlaw -Rahul Dubey was allegedly committed one year back from the date of her FIR. 19. Trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons and husband and his family members by way of Cr.R No.87/2017 challenged the framing of charge for offence under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 whereas, framing of charges under sections 376 and 511 of IPC was challenged by way of Cr.R. NO.447/2017. 19. Trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons and husband and his family members by way of Cr.R No.87/2017 challenged the framing of charge for offence under section 498-A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 whereas, framing of charges under sections 376 and 511 of IPC was challenged by way of Cr.R. NO.447/2017. Both the criminal revisions were heard analogously by this Court and vide order dated 22.5.2020, both the revisions were allowed and charges framed against the petitioners were quashed and all accused were discharged. They not only suffered incarceration but also faced the rigours of prosecution which is sufficient to attract mental cruelty. (See: K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [ (2013) 5 SCC 226 ], Dr.(Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. v. B.V.Ravi M.D. [ (2014) 7 SCC 640 ] and K.Sriniwas v. K.Sunita [ 2014 16 SCC 34 ]). Therefore, plea of mental cruelty stands proved. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent and his family members after meandering through the clutches of prosecution and its rigorous process already suffered a lot and obviously so because allegations were not only of dowry demand but also for offence under section 376 of IPC. That is sufficient to attract mental cruelty. 21. Not only this an application under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2005 was also preferred at the instance of wife in which JMFC allowed the application vide order dated 26.6.2019 against the respondent/husband. In appeal before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri respondent again suffered vide order dated 18.10.2019, whereby Appellate Court confirmed the order passed by JMFC. Thereafter, criminal revision at the instance of respondent / husband is pending vide Cr.R.No.767/2021. This act further shows the intention of appellant to cause harassment to respondent through legal proceeding. 22. Cumulatively, case is sufficiently made out by the respondent for mental cruelty and trial Court did not err in passing the impugned judgment on the basis of mental cruelty on the ground of spree of criminal cases registered at the instance of appellant / wife. So far as allegations of leading adulterous life is concerned that has not been found proved by the Court below and rightly so because medical prescription papers and the evidence of doctor did not evoke enough credence and confidence to conclude about the factum of adulterous life led by the appellant. So far as allegations of leading adulterous life is concerned that has not been found proved by the Court below and rightly so because medical prescription papers and the evidence of doctor did not evoke enough credence and confidence to conclude about the factum of adulterous life led by the appellant. Since, this Court has already considered the aspect of mental cruelty in detail as discussed above therefore, even if this point is discarded, even then case is made out for issuance of decree of divorce. 23. Resultantly the appeal preferred by the appellant/wife stands dismissed and the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the Court below is hereby affirmed. No costs.