Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 377 (RAJ)

Pooja Chabra v. Kishor Chabra

2023-02-01

GANESH RAM MEENA, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2023
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 03.02.2018 passed by the Family Court, Dausa (for short 'the Family Court') whereby petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') filed by the respondent-husband has been allowed and a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent-husband. 2. Respondent-husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion both, on the pleadings inter alia that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11.12.2010 and after about seven days of marriage, behaviour of the appellant-wife towards the respondent-husband and relatives became rude and indifferent. She threatened that she will get the entire family arrested. She was not interested in household works and used to watch T.V. It was further pleaded that appellant-wife and her relatives were continuously extending threat of implication in the criminal case. It was also pleaded that the wife used to go to her parental house in every 2-3 days and also used to enter into quarrel on this issue. She was habitual of talking on phone for long time and when the same was objected to, she used to quarrel. There were other allegations made in the petition that the wife was not sharing usable. On 15.01.2011, parents and brother of the appellant-wife came and insisted to take her away by stating that they will send the appellant-wife back only when the respondent-husband arranges for a separate residence. Thereafter, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial house with her jewellery and clothes. Thereafter, a house was taken by the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife was informed but she did not come back. The appellant wife lodged a false report on 02.11.2011 at Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Attempt was made to bring about settlement and under the settlement, the respondent-husband was to arrange for a new house and he also arranged a new house. On 15.11.2011, the respondent-husband suffered an accident resulting in an injury on his right leg because of which he could not go to Dausa to bring his wife back. Despite having knowledge of this fact, the appellant-wife did not come to look after the respondent-husband and on the other hand, again went to Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 22.11.2011 for making a complaint. Despite having knowledge of this fact, the appellant-wife did not come to look after the respondent-husband and on the other hand, again went to Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 22.11.2011 for making a complaint. Though, efforts were made to bring about settlement in the counselling centre, but the wife did not cooperate. Despite several efforts made, the appellant-wife did not come back to the matrimonial house. Looking to the dispute and the conduct of the appellant-wife, father of the respondent husband disowned and deprived the respondent-husband of all the rights in the movable and immovable properties of the family. The respondent husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in which though a settlement was arrived on 05.04.2013 that both the parties shall live together, which led to closure of the proceedings, however, the wife stayed only for two days thereafter with the husband and she did not allow the husband to cohabit. Thereafter, she again left the matrimonial house. Despite several attempts made, the appellant wife refused to come back. The family members of the appellant wife are persons of criminal background and involved in drug trafficking. This has affected the reputation of the husband. 3. The pleading of desertion was also made by stating that the appellant wife left the respondent-husband since 15.01.2011 and despite all efforts made, she, without any reasonable cause, is not inclined to reside with the husband, thus, having deserted. 4. The appellant-wife denied the allegations made in the complaint. She stated that after about 10-12 days of marriage, she was compelled to arrange Rs. 10,00,000/- from her father and as thaT amount was not given, the respondent husband and his relatives started harassing the wife. She was bitterly beaten on 16.01.2011 by the respondent-husband and relatives while she was carrying pregnancy and was shunted out of the matrimonial house declaring that she will not be allowed to come back unless she arranges Rs. 10,00,000/- from her father. On 02.11.2011, the appellant-wife had lodged report at Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and to save himself from the same, the respondent husband entered into settlement but did not allow the appellant wife to live with him. She was not given any information of accident dated 15.11.2011. As demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- from her father. On 02.11.2011, the appellant-wife had lodged report at Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and to save himself from the same, the respondent husband entered into settlement but did not allow the appellant wife to live with him. She was not given any information of accident dated 15.11.2011. As demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made and she was subjected to cruelty, assault and shunting out of the matrimonial house, she again approached Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 22.11.2011. It was further stated that looking to the future of the child, appellant-wife was prepared to reside with the respondent husband and, therefore, she bonafide accepted the offer of settlement in pending proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. However, after settlement, she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house and again demand of Rs. 10,00,000/-was made and she was also left behind in the rented premises. The appellant-wife lived therefor about 10 days but no arrangement was made and the husband refused to provide financial support. Thereafter, she was again beaten up and thrown away from the matrimonial house. The appellant-wife again came to the parental house. On 06.06.2013, the husband, his parents and brother came to parental house of the appellant wife and demanded money and assaulted. Therefore, on 21.06.2013, an F.I.R. was lodged which led to registration of criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406,323,341 IPC and section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which is pending in the Court. 5. Pleading of desertion was also specifically denied by the appellant-wife and it was stated that after compromise entered into between the parties in restitution of conjugal rights proceedings, she had stayed with her husband for about ten days until she was again thrown out and therefore, it cannot be said that this is a case of desertion from 15.01.2011. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed following issues: ^^1- vk;k foi{kh;k us izkFkhZ ds lkFk ;kfpdk esa of.kZr vuqlkj dzwjrk dk crkZo fd;k\ -------izkFkhZ 2- vk;k foi{kh;k us fnukad 15 tuojh 2011 ls izkFkhZ dk vfHkR;tu fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds dj j[kk gS\ -------izkFkhZ 3- vk;k izkFkhZ ;kfpdk es of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\** 7. In order to prove their respective case, the respondent husband and the appellant-wife both examined themselves as also other witnesses. 8. In order to prove their respective case, the respondent husband and the appellant-wife both examined themselves as also other witnesses. 8. Learned Family Court, relying upon the evidence led by the respondent husband, particularly the evidence with regard to the appellant-wife compelling the respondent-husband to live separately, instituting false criminal case and harassing the respondent-husband and family; deserting the respondent husband all of a sudden after settlement and not attending the respondent-husband even after he sustained injury due to accident, held that a case of cruelty was made out in favour of the respondent-husband and against the appellant-wife. On such findings, learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.02.2018, granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband. Further, the learned Family Court taking into consideration the evidence with regard to financial status of the respondent-husband, awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 4,50,000/- in favour of the appellant-wife. 9. Assailing legality and validity of impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence led by the respondent-husband and there is hardly any consideration of relevant evidence led by the appellant wife. He would argue that the appellant-wife specifically pleaded that on 15.01.2011, she was subjected to cruelty. In support of this specific pleading, she not only examined herself but also other witnesses, particularly an independent witness being the tenant of the appellant-husband. Learned Family Court wrongly disbelieved the same. Learned counsel would further submit that the findings recorded by the Family Court that the appellant-wife failed to prove that any cruelty was committed on her is misreading of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant would further argue that there was no clear and emphatic pleading that the appellant-wife compelled the respondent-husband to live separately from her family members including parents of the respondent husband. The evidence in this regard led by the respondent-husband is not reliable particularly when his father himself in his evidence has deposed that it was he who had directed his son and the daughter-in-law to live separately. The evidence on record, as deposed by other witnesses, also shows that the reason for residing separately from the parents and family was not insistence on the part of the appellant-wife but because of other circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be said that wife committed cruelty by insisting the respondent-husband to live separately. The evidence on record, as deposed by other witnesses, also shows that the reason for residing separately from the parents and family was not insistence on the part of the appellant-wife but because of other circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be said that wife committed cruelty by insisting the respondent-husband to live separately. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as far as institution of criminal case is concerned, the appellant wife having clearly stated in her pleadings and also leading cogent and reliable evidence of she being harassed and subjected to cruelty leading to institution of criminal case against the respondent-husband cannot be said to be an act of cruelty. Learned Family Court has misread the evidence to come to the conclusion that the appellant wife admitted that she had lodged false criminal case to achieve the object of seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent-husband. Learned counsel for the appellant would further argue that the evidence on record regarding the appellant not attending her ailing husband after accident is a very trivial matter because no material has been placed on record to show that he had suffered any serious injury, much less, any fracture. Moreover, this fact has not been admitted by the appellant-wife and she has denied that she was ever informed regarding the accident of her husband. It is argued that on such evidence, the learned Family Court has unwarrantedly jumped to the conclusion of cruelty having been committed by the appellant-wife. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 318 (S.C.), Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur 2010 (4) Civil Court Cases 724 (S.C.); judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Charu Nagwani v. Lakhmi Chand Nagwani, 2014 (2) Civil Court Cases 069 (Delhi)(DB); judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Reeta v. Ankit Kumar 2022(1) Civil Court Cases 121 (Allahabad) (DB); judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jatinder Kumar v. Preety 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 403 (P&H); judgment of this Court in Prakash v. Smt. Kavita 2009 (2) Civil Court Cases 521 (Rajasthan) (DB). 10. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent husband would argue that the learned Family Court, after meticulous and minute scrutiny of the evidence on record, has recorded finding with regard to cruelty. He would argue that the respondent-husband in his pleadings clearly stated that it was the appellant-wife who insisted the respondent-husband and compelled him to live separately which finally led the respondent husband to live separately from his parents as they were involved in a false implication in a criminal case at the instance of the appellant-wife. The evidence led by the respondent-husband in this regard fully supports the pleading that it was the insistence on the part of the appellant-wife and her family members to live separately. Next submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the evidence led by the appellant-wife with regard to the case set up by her that she was subjected to cruelty by assault on heron 15.01.2011 has been discarded and disbelieved by the learned Family Court as the same is not supported by any independent and reliable evidence. The evidence led by the appellant-wife that the respondent-husband subjected her to assault is not supported by any criminal case lodged against the respondent-husband by the appellant-wife, much less, any injury report. He would next submit that the appellant-wife, in order to support her case, chose to examine only an interested witness being the tenant with whom the respondent-husband and his family were in civil dispute. There is no independent evidence in this regard. He would further argue that the manner in which and the point of time at which the report was lodged at the police station clearly shows that it was a case of false implication. He would also submit that the appellant wife lodged the report in the police station subsequent to filing of the petition for grant of decree of divorce. In that matter, in her evidence, the appellant wife has admitted that object and purpose of lodging criminal case was to secure restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent-husband. As a result of false implication, the respondent-husband and his family members suffered agony. Parents of the respondent-husband were also arrested and had to remain in jail. In that matter, in her evidence, the appellant wife has admitted that object and purpose of lodging criminal case was to secure restitution of conjugal rights with the respondent-husband. As a result of false implication, the respondent-husband and his family members suffered agony. Parents of the respondent-husband were also arrested and had to remain in jail. Referring to judgment of acquittal dated 09.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa (certified copy of which has been placed on record along with application for taking additional evidence on record), it is argued that the respondent-husband has been acquitted of the criminal charges. Therefore, the findings of learned Family Court on the aspect that respondent husband and his family members were falsely implicated in a criminal case making false allegation of cruelty does not warrant any interference. He wold further submit that the respondent-husband was always willing to have restitution of conjugal relationship and therefore, he entered into compromise with the wife. However, the appellant-wife did not reside with him for more than two days and all of a sudden, again left the matrimonial house, even though a separate house was arranged by him. Therefore, this has rightly been held to be an act of cruelty. Further submission of learned counsel for the respondent-husband is that the pleadings and evidence on record clearly proves that the respondent-husband suffered an accident. The transcript of conversation and other evidence on record also clearly prove that the husband had suffered an accident and was ailing. Even thereafter, the appellant-wife did not come to attend the respondent-husband though she was informed and she lodged a report in the police on 22.11.2011 which clearly shows that the appellant-wife acted in a manner which would amount to cruelty. Even thereafter, the appellant-wife did not come to attend the respondent-husband though she was informed and she lodged a report in the police on 22.11.2011 which clearly shows that the appellant-wife acted in a manner which would amount to cruelty. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra v. K. Meena (2016) 9 SCC 455 ; judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Shivani Rathi v. Achal Maheshwari 2019 (4) Civil Court Cases 751 (P&H) (DB), Harjeet Kaur v. Satpal Singh (FAOM-493-2015 decided on 05.01.2023); judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Dimple v. Subhash, 2016 AIR CC 1236; judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Jagwati v. Gajender Kumar 2017 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 751 (Delhi)(DB); judgments of Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in the cases of Prabir Kumar Das v. Smt. Papiya Das (Fam No. 97/2014 decided on 29.01.2018); Shailendra Kumar Chandra v. Smt. Bharti Chandra (First Appeal (M) No. 124/2017 decided on 27.04.2022); judgment of Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in the case of Sheenu Mahendru v. Sangeeta @ Soniya (First Appeal No. 139 of 2017 decided on 23.05.2019). 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including pleadings of the parties, oral and documentary evidence. 12. The petition for grant of decree of divorce was filed by the respondent husband on the grounds of cruelty as well as desertion. Though learned Family Court did not find it to be a case of grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been passed by the learned Family Court in favour of the respondent-husband. 13. In order to hold that the respondent-husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, following facts have been found proved by the learned Family Court: (a) Immediately after the marriage, the appellant-wife insisted the respondent-husband to live separately from his family members by taking a house on rent and, therefore, on such insistence, the respondent husband had to take a separate house but despite that, the appellant-wife did not reside with the respondent husband. (b) In the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, the appellant-wife -entered into compromise stating that she would reside with the respondent husband, she resided with the husband only for two days and again left him which resulted in mental agony to the husband. (c) Demand of dowry at the time of marriage has not been proved and there is no clear evidence with regard to demand of Rs. 10,00,000/-immediately after ten days of marriage. (d) The list of articles said to be given in dowry were not led in evidence. (e) Appellant-wife admitted that she had lodged criminal case alleging commission of offences under Section 498A IPC only to secure restitution of conjugal rights and as a result of such institution of criminal case, the parents of the respondent-husband had to remain in jail and the respondent would always have this feeling and pain. (f) Even though, it was within the knowledge of the appellant-wife that her husband suffered an accident, yet she did not come to attend him and that also amounted to cruelty. 14. The following issue arises for determination in the present appeal: Whether the learned Family Court committed illegality in holding that the appellant-wife subjected her husband to cruelty as described in the plaint? 15. In para 9 of the petition filed by the respondent-husband it has been pleaded that on 15.01.2011, parents and brothers of the appellant-wife came and insisted to take the appellant-wife back to her parental house stating that they will send the wife back only when the respondent-husband arranges for a separate residence for the appellant-wife to which the respondent husband expressed his inability and thereafter, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial house with her ornaments and clothes. In Para 10 of the petition, the respondent-husband has further stated that when the other party did not agree, left with no option, he finally arranged a separate residence and information was given to the appellant-wife but despite that, she did not come back. In Para 11 of the petition, it has also been pleaded that on 02.11.2011, a false report was lodged at Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and counselling was done. The respondent-husband was willing to take the appellant-wife back and finally settled that a new rented accommodation will be taken where he would live with the wife. The respondent-husband again arranged another residence. 16. The respondent-husband was willing to take the appellant-wife back and finally settled that a new rented accommodation will be taken where he would live with the wife. The respondent-husband again arranged another residence. 16. The pleadings made in para 9,10 and 11 of the petition were denied by the appellant-wife in her written statement. In this regard, it has been pleaded that the appellant-wife was assaulted on 16.01.2011 while she was carrying pregnancy and shunted out of the matrimonial house by stating that she will be allowed entry only when she brings Rs. 10,00,000/-from her father for which she had to lodge the report at the police station on 02.11.2011 and only to save him from the criminal case, a farce of compromise was made without any intention of restitution of conjugal rights. 17. Respondent-husband, Kishor Chabra (A.W.1) in his evidence deposed that on 15.01.2011, the parents and brothers of the appellant-wife had come and insisted to take the wife back and further stated that wife would be allowed to reside with the respondent-appellant only when a separate house is arranged which was opposed and whereafter, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial house with her ornaments and clothes. The respondent-husband thereafter arranged a rented premises which was informed to the appellant-wife but she did not come back. The receipts of the rent have also been led in evidence. The respondent-husband has further deposed that on 02.11.2011, a report was lodged against him by the appellant-wife and in the counselling proceedings it was agreed to take a separate house and thereafter, another rented accommodation was taken by the respondent-husband. In his cross-examination, no suggestion has been given that the respondent-husband had not taken any house on rent. The evidence of the respondent-husband that the parents and brothers of the appellant-wife had come and insisted him to arrange for a separate house has not been controverted in his cross-examination, the respondent husband has been subjected to a detailed cross-examination. Thus, the uncontroverted testimony of the respondent-husband that he was insisted upon and compelled to take a separate house as a condition for maintaining conjugal relationship with the appellant-wife proves the pleading that it was on the insistence of the appellant-wife and her relatives that the respondent-husband had to take a separate residence away from his family. 18. Thus, the uncontroverted testimony of the respondent-husband that he was insisted upon and compelled to take a separate house as a condition for maintaining conjugal relationship with the appellant-wife proves the pleading that it was on the insistence of the appellant-wife and her relatives that the respondent-husband had to take a separate residence away from his family. 18. Ashok Kumar Chabra (A.W.2), brother of the respondent husband has also stated that sister-in-law (appellant-wife) had threatened that she will reside with the respondent-husband only when a separate house is taken. In his cross-examination, he has stated that respondent-husband (Kishor) resides along with his wife in the house purchased from his own income or in a rented accommodation and at the same breath, he stated that it was insistence on the part of sister-in-law, Pooja that she will reside with the respondent-husband only when there is a separate house constructed by the respondent-husband and not in the rented premises. This witness has made contradictory statement in his cross-examination. In further cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the respondent-husband Kishor is living separately from the family since 15.01.2011 and the reason for such separate living is the behaviour of sister-in-law as she always insisted to take separate house as a condition for matrimonial relationship. 19. Father of the respondent-husband, namely, Preetam Singh Chabra (A.W.3) in para 2 of his affidavit has stated that after about 5 to 7 days of the marriage, Pooja started insulting the members of the family and insisted for partition in the name of Kishor. In the affidavit, it is also stated that on 1.5.01.2011, the relatives of Pooja came and took her away stating that she will be sent back only when a separate residence is arranged whereafter Kishor arranged a house in Sindhi Colony and informed Pooja but she did not come back. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that from 15.01.2011, his son, Kishor is not residing with him. He and his wife and two other sons except Kishor reside together. He further deposed that after 2-1/2 months of the marriage of Kishor, he evicted Kishor from his house and the reason assigned by him is that because of behaviour of Kishor and his wife, he had evicted Kishor. However, in his cross-examination, averments made in Para 2 and 5 of the affidavit have not been controverted. He further deposed that after 2-1/2 months of the marriage of Kishor, he evicted Kishor from his house and the reason assigned by him is that because of behaviour of Kishor and his wife, he had evicted Kishor. However, in his cross-examination, averments made in Para 2 and 5 of the affidavit have not been controverted. Thus, the evidence of this witness as a whole is to the effect that Pooja started insulting. There used to be quarrel and she was insisting for a separate house to live with his husband Kishor and Kishor also started misbehaving and for that reason, he had to ask Kishor to vacate the house. In view of uncontroverted evidence that the relatives of Pooja had come and she was taken away with the condition of return only when a separate house is arranged clearly shows that the appellant-wife Pooja had been insisting for living separately which led to lot of disputes in the family and finally Kishor had to arrange for a separate house leaving behind his parents and other relatives. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the reason for Kishor to take separate house was not insistence of the appellant but he was evicted by his father, is based on isolated reading of the part of the evidence. It is one of the cardinal principles of appreciation of evidence that the entire evidence has to be read and it cannot be read in isolation and piecemeal divorced from the context in which statement has been made. The reason for Preetam Singh Chabra (A.W.3), father of the respondent-husband to ask his son to leave the house with his wife was the insistence of the appellant for residing in a separate house. This also has been stated by the respondent-husband in his evidence which has not been controverted in the evidence of A.W.2, brother of the respondent. Therefore, the finding of the learned Family Court that it was the appellant-wife who compelled her husband to leave the house where his parents were residing and compelled him to live separately and it was because of this dispute that Kishor had to take another house on rent to reside with the appellant is correctly recorded. The fact that another house was taken on rent is an admitted position on record. 20. The fact that another house was taken on rent is an admitted position on record. 20. Appellant-wife, Smt. Pooja Chabra (NAW-2) in her cross-examination has deposed that there existed a dispute between her and her husband. She further admits that a separate house was taken though she disputes that it was on her instance. Therefore, taking a separate house on rent and changing rented premises have been clearly admitted by the appellant-wife. It has, therefore, to be held that it was the appellant-wife who insisted the respondent-husband to live separately from his parents and other relatives and finally because of said dispute, the father of the respondent-husband asked him to vacate the house and the husband, Kishor took another house on rent. Therefore, the proved facts relating to conduct of the appellant-wife constituted an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13, sub-section (1) (ia) of the Act. 21. In the case of Narendra v. K. Meena (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that insistence of the wife on her husband to live separately was torturous and amounted to cruelty and on that ground, the husband was entitled to seek decree of divorce. It was held as below: "12. The respondent wife wanted the appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. 13. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. 13. In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family. The averment of the Respondent was to the effect that the income of the appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the respondent wanted the appellant to be separated from the family-the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. 14. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of the respondent husband. We do not see any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the respondent wife to constrain the appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of "cruelty"." Similar is the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Harjeet Kaur v. Satpal Singh (supra), Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Sheenu Mahendru v. Sangeeta @ Soniya (supra); judgments of Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in Prabir Kumar Das v. Smt. Papiya Das (supra); and Shailendra Kumar Chandra v. Smt. Bharti Chandra (supra). 22. Certainly, had there been just and reasonable cause for the appellant wife to insist the respondent-husband to live separately, that perhaps could not constitute as an act of cruelty. The appellant has come out with the case that in fact, she was subjected to cruelty by giving her assault and unceremoniously shunted out of the matrimonial house on 15.01.2011. This stand of the appellant has been disbelieved by the learned Family Court. While the case of the respondent-husband as pleaded in the petition was that the appellant-wife insisted to live separately and she was taken away by her parents and relatives on 15.01.2011 with the condition of return only when separate house is arranged by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife came out with the case in her written statement that she was subjected to cruelty. In the written statement, allegations of cruelty have been levelled by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband. It has been pleaded in para 3 of the written statement that after 10-12 days of solemnisation of marriage, the respondent-husband and his relatives started pressurising her to collect Rs. 10,00,000/-from her father and when she said that it was beyond her father's financial capacity, the respondent-husband and relatives started subjecting her to cruelty and assault. In para 9 of the written statement, the appellant-wife has pleaded that on 16.01.2011, she was badly beaten up in the state of pregnancy by the respondent-husband and family members and she was shunted out of the matrimonial house stating that she would be allowed to entry only when her father gives Rs. In para 9 of the written statement, the appellant-wife has pleaded that on 16.01.2011, she was badly beaten up in the state of pregnancy by the respondent-husband and family members and she was shunted out of the matrimonial house stating that she would be allowed to entry only when her father gives Rs. 10,00,000/- and, therefore, she was compelled to come back to her parental house. In para 11 and 13 of the written statement, she has pleaded that she had lodged report at Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 02.11.2011 followed by another report on 22.11.2011 in the same police station. In para 15 of the written statement, it has been pleaded that upon return after counselling, she was again beaten by the respondent-husband stating that whatever was done in counselling was only a farce and the respondent-husband was not inclined to keep the appellant-wife with him and, therefore, she had to go back to her parental house. In para 19 of the written statement, appellant-wife has pleaded that after settlement arrived at in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, she came with her child to reside along with the appellant in his house but she was not allowed to enter and again demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was raised whereafter the respondent-husband left her in the rented premises and used to come there for about 10 days, though no arrangement of ration was made and upon demand, the respondent-husband refused to make any such arrangement. Thereafter, she was again assaulted and shunted out of the matrimonial house. Her husband and relatives came to her parental house on 06.06.2013 and demanded money and threatened and assaulted her. Then, she lodged the report in the police station on 21.06.2013 upon which case for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323,341 IPC and section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered which is pending. 23. However, the evidence in this regard is at variance with pleadings. According to the appellant-wife, she was assaulted and shunted out of the matrimonial house on demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16.01.2011. Appellant-Smt. Pooja (NAW-2), in her evidence states that incident happened on 15.01.2011 when she was assaulted and shunted out of the matrimonial house. Thus, while in the pleadings she stated that incident happened on 16.01.2011, in her evidence she states that incident of assault took place on 15.01.2011. 10,00,000/- on 16.01.2011. Appellant-Smt. Pooja (NAW-2), in her evidence states that incident happened on 15.01.2011 when she was assaulted and shunted out of the matrimonial house. Thus, while in the pleadings she stated that incident happened on 16.01.2011, in her evidence she states that incident of assault took place on 15.01.2011. According to her, when she was assaulted, she came back to her parental house at Dausa. She however, does not depose that this was the incident of assault on her which was reported by her in the police station. 24. Sister-in-law of the appellant-wife, namely, Pooja wife of Pradeep (NAW-4) has also deposed that the appellant-Pooja was assaulted on 15.01.2011 and she came to the parental house on that day. She, however, admitted in her cross-examination that Pooja did not use to disclose matrimonial issues to her. Another witness, Pushpa, aunt of the appellant (NAW-5) has also not supportec the story of assault as pleaded in the written statement. 25. The appellant examined one Arvind Kalra (NAW-1) as her witness in support of her pleading that she was subjected to assault on 16.01.2011. Though this witness stated that he had seen the respondent-husband, Kishor and his relatives assaulting the appellant-wife Pooja in her house and that Pooja had come to him and collected Rs. 50/- and then went to her parental house, in cross-examination, it has been elicited that he had last seen Pooja on 15.01.2011 and according to him, Pooja had come to his place on that day at about 11.00 complaining that she was assaulted and had been shunted out of the matrimonial house. This witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that there existed dispute between him and the father of the respondent-husband and a civil dispute was also going on. He has admitted that in 2001, there was an order of eviction from tenanted premises passed by the Court at Jaipur against which he had preferred appeal and lost in that appeal and finally, he vacated the rented premises in 2011. It is, thus, clear that Arvind Kalra is not independent witness but he had a dispute with the respondent husband and he was finally evicted from the tenanted premises by the order of the Court. 26. It is, thus, clear that Arvind Kalra is not independent witness but he had a dispute with the respondent husband and he was finally evicted from the tenanted premises by the order of the Court. 26. It would, thus, be seen that the allegation of assault and cruelty made by the appellant-wife happened on 16.01.2011 as pleaded in the written statement but the entire evidence is with regard to incident of 15.01.2011. Thus, the statement of the appellant-wife and her witnesses are not at all reliable. Moreover, the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence of lodging any report or complaint in the police station immediately after coming back from the matrimonial house which contains such allegation of alleged assault on her on 16.01.2011 or 15.01.2011. Therefore, finding of the learned Family Court that allegation of cruelty committed on the appellant on 15.01.2011 or 16.01.2011 is not proved, does not warrant any interference. 27. On the other hand, the pleadings and evidence of the respondent husband, as discussed hereinabove, that the appellant-wife was taken away from the matrimonial house on 15.01.2011 by her parents and brothers on the condition that she would not come back unless a separate house is taken, is reliable and, therefore, rightly so held by the learned Family Court. The findings in this regard also, therefore, do not warrant any interference. 28. The appellant has not placed on record the report, if any, lodged by heron 02.11.2011 and 22.11.2011 in support of her allegation of cruelty. Learned Family Court has rightly noticed that the appellant, in her cross-examination, admitted that she had instituted a criminal case in order to secure restitution of conjugal rights. This admission on the part of the appellant in her cross-examination has been made a basis by the learned Family Court to record a finding that the appellant had falsely implicated the respondent-husband and her parents so much so respondent's parents had to remain in jail on such accusations. 29. Certified copy of judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in Criminal Case No. 561 /2013 has also been placed on record which shows that in the criminal case also, the assault was alleged to have been made on 16.01.2011. 29. Certified copy of judgment dated 09.04.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in Criminal Case No. 561 /2013 has also been placed on record which shows that in the criminal case also, the assault was alleged to have been made on 16.01.2011. The Criminal Court, while examining the evidence on record, has taken into consideration that the appellant as witness has admitted in her cross-examination that allegations of assault was not in the report. She has also admitted that no report of assault made at Dausa was lodged in the police station. She also admitted that she did not get her medically examined to support the allegation of assault. She has also admitted that no report was lodged against the husband on the allegation of scuffle with her father. It was also recorded as finding by the learned Family Court that another witness namely Pooja wife of Pradeep (NAW-4) has admitted that allegations of assault and wrongful confinement was not stated in the report. The Criminal Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that allegation of assault and allegation of demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- are doubtful. It has been taken into consideration that the appellant had not lodged any report in the police station regarding assault allegedly given to her at Jaipur and Dausa. In para 23 of the judgment, the criminal Court has recorded a finding that in the absence of evidence, the respondent-husband is entitled to be acquitted of charges under Section 498-A, 406 IPC and section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 30. The pleading of the appellant-wife is that she submitted a report at Mahila Thana Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 02.11.2011 alleging that dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- was demanded from her and it was on account of non-fulfillment of the demand that she was subjected to beating and assault and was harassed and also not allowed to reside in the matrimonial house. However, in her cross-examination, appellant-wife (NAW 2) denied suggestion regarding lodging of report in Police Station at Jaipur on 02.11.2011 against the respondent-husband, Kishor and his family members. However, in her cross-examination, appellant-wife (NAW 2) denied suggestion regarding lodging of report in Police Station at Jaipur on 02.11.2011 against the respondent-husband, Kishor and his family members. Further, while in the pleading contained in the written statement it has been pleaded that the husband in order to save himself against complaint dated 02.11.2011, falsely pretended to have entered into settlement but later on did not reside with the appellant-wife, but in her cross-examination, she denied suggestion that on such complaint any settlement proceedings were conducted. Thus, the appellant does not support the pleadings made in para 11 and 12 in the written statement. 31. In Para 13 of the written statement, it has been pleaded that as the appellant-wife was shunted out of the matrimonial house in connection with the demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- against which she again approached Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 22.11.2011. In her evidence, she denied that she had lodged any report in Mahila Thana Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur on 22.11.2011. The pleadings and evidence both are not only at variance with each other but also cryptic. Though, the appellant-wife has pleaded that she has submitted a complaint on 02.11.2011 at Mahila Thana Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, no such complaint has been produced on record to support that there was any allegation of demand of dowry made and in connection with that, she was subjected to cruelty. Furthermore, it is not clear as to whether any complaint was made in the police station on 22.11.2011, in view of the pleading that the appellant had again approached the police on 22.11.2011. What was the complaint made has not been stated in pleadings. No document making any complaint in writing has been led in evidence. 32. It is the case of the appellant, as pleaded in Para 19 of the written statement that on 06.06.2013, the husband and his relatives had come to meet the appellant-wife in her parental house where again a demand was made and she was assaulted. But no report was immediately lodged in the police station. The petition for grant of decree of divorce was filed by the respondent appellant on 15.06.2013 and it is only thereafter that as late as on 12.07.2013, report was lodged in the police station alleging commission of offence under Section 498-A/406/323/341 IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 33. The petition for grant of decree of divorce was filed by the respondent appellant on 15.06.2013 and it is only thereafter that as late as on 12.07.2013, report was lodged in the police station alleging commission of offence under Section 498-A/406/323/341 IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 33. In the written statement, the appellant-wife also raised a plea that after marriage, Rs. 10,00,000/-was demanded from her relatives and when the demand was not fulfilled, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty. This has been pleaded in para 3, 9, 11, 13 and 19 of the written statement. Though, averment in para 1 of the written statement has been made that lot of dowry was given but no details of the same has been submitted. The appellant wife (NAW-2), in her testimony, has deposed regarding gifts and cash said to be given at the time of marriage and it has also been deposed that her father has incurred expenditure of Rs. 10,00,000/-. In her evidence, she has deposed that her husband earns Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. It has also been deposed in the cross-examination that the respondent-husband owns three houses and four shops. Rent of two shops is collected by the father and rent of other two shops is collected by respondent-husband Kishor. It has also been deposed that there are two other shops in another market of which the respondent-husband is the owner. Appellant's witness namely Praveen Kumar (NAW-3) also states that the respondent-husband owns shop of which he is tenant and pays Rs. 25,000/- per month. He has stated that Kishor is financially sound. Next witness of the appellant-wife namely Pooja wife of Pradeep (NAW-4) has also deposed hat in her examination in chief that after 10-15 days of the marriage, a demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was raised, however, in her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion that Pooja did not use to disclose her the affairs of matrimonial house. She has also admitted that list of gifts has not been submitted though prepared. Her evidence does not show that at the time of marriage, any demand was raised. Aunt of the appellant-wife namely Pushpa (NAW-5) has deposed in her cross-examination that only demand raised from the side of the respondent husband was to come to Jaipur for marriage and except that no other demand was raised. Her evidence does not show that at the time of marriage, any demand was raised. Aunt of the appellant-wife namely Pushpa (NAW-5) has deposed in her cross-examination that only demand raised from the side of the respondent husband was to come to Jaipur for marriage and except that no other demand was raised. According to the pleading of the appellant, after about 10 days of marriage, demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made and that is said to be the main reason for subjecting her to cruelty. If this version is accepted that would mean that demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made in the month of December, 2010 and she was also subjected to cruelty in the month of December, 2010 and January, 2011 and finally shunted out of the matrimonial house after beating. However, there is nothing on record to show that any report was made anywhere by her. Even according to the appellant, the first report was lodged by her on 02.11.2011 followed by another complaint on 22.11.2011, copies of which have not been placed on record. FIR has been lodged only on 12.07.2013. Therefore, the finding of the learned Family Court that the appellant has failed to prove demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- soon after the marriage was improbable. The finding of the learned Family Court, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 34. The main reason behind alleged cruelty is said to be demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- after about ten days of marriage. Even according to the appellant, she was subjected to cruelty and beating when she could not fulfill the demand of Rs. 10,00,000/-. When the story of demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- itself is not reliable, the allegation of cruelty has been rightly held to be an afterthought and more as a tool to seek restitution of conjugal rights, as stated by the appellant herself in her cross-examination. 35. In view of above, the finding has been recorded by the learned Family Court that the respondent-husband was subjected to false allegation of cruelty by the appellant-wife and it had serious consequences as respondent's parents were jailed and this false allegation of cruelty and subjecting him to criminal case constituted an act of cruelty. The finding of the learned Family Court, therefore, does not warrant any interference in this regard. 36. The finding of the learned Family Court, therefore, does not warrant any interference in this regard. 36. Therefore, it has to be held that allegation of cruelty upon the appellant by the respondent was calculatively false, which had serious consequences as the respondent was also sent to jail and his parents were also jailed on allegations of commission of offences under Sections 498-A IPC and other offences. The criminal proceedings, as has been referred to hereinabove, also ended in acquittal. 37. The Division Bench ot Delhi High court in the case of Jagwati v. Gajender Kumar (supra) held that false criminal case against husband and his family by itself is sufficient to prove mental cruelty. In another Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shivani Rathi v. Achal Maheshwari (supra) it was held that filing of criminal case by wife against husband in which the husband was acquitted amounts to cruelty and could be a basis to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, false implication of respondent-husband and his parents in the name of cruelty also constitutes an act of cruelty and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court in this regard also do not call for any interference. 38. We find that learned Family Court has treated the act of desertion on the part of the wife as cruelty. However, we are not inclined to affirm that part of the finding because the mere act of the wife to leave the house of the husband, without anything more, at the most, would constitute an act of desertion, which is an independent ground for seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act, it cannot be said to be an act of cruelty. It is relevant to mention here that while both the parties admit that after settlement of dispute in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, the parties had started living together, the version of the parties is different with regard to the period during which they stayed together and the reason behind leaving the matrimonial house again. While according to respondent-husband, the appellant herself left the matrimonial house in two days, according to the appellant-wife, she was shunted out of the matrimonial house. While according to respondent-husband, the appellant herself left the matrimonial house in two days, according to the appellant-wife, she was shunted out of the matrimonial house. It is not necessary for us to go into that aspect because the learned Family Court has recorded a finding that desertion as a ground for decree of divorce is not established and there is no cross-objection by the respondent on this issue. This is so because even according to the respondent, after settlement of the dispute, both the parties had lived together for some time. As period of two years had not lapsed, it is not necessary to go into that aspect as to whether the respondent-husband left the wife or the appellant-wife left the matrimonial house. In any case, even if, evidence of the respondent is accepted that the wife again left the matrimonial house that cannot be treated an as act of cruelty. 39. There is another finding recorded by the learned Family Court that even though respondent-husband met with an accident, the appellant-wife did not come to see him which constituted an act of cruelty. We have gone through the pleadings and the evidence in this regard. Even if we accept the version the of the respondent-husband that the appellant had notice and knowledge of the accident, yet she did not come as against the version of the appellant-wife that she had no notice of such accident, in the absence of there being any evidence of serious injury, keeping in view the fact that the parties at that time were i dispute, both of them were residing in two different cities, non-attending the husband, who has not suffered any serious injury, would not constitute a act of cruelty. Therefore, the finding of the learned Family Court in this regard are reversed and it is held that mere non-attending the husband would not amount to cruelty. 40. However, as we have held that on other aspect, cruelty is proved, we affirm the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband. 41. There is one more aspect on which we heard the parties and that is with regard to amount of permanent alimony. Learned Family Court has awarded Rs. 4,50,000/- as permanent alimony. The Family Court has disbelieved the evidence with regard to financial capacity of the husband and the evidence of Praveen Kumar (NAW-3) that the respondent-husband earns Rs. 41. There is one more aspect on which we heard the parties and that is with regard to amount of permanent alimony. Learned Family Court has awarded Rs. 4,50,000/- as permanent alimony. The Family Court has disbelieved the evidence with regard to financial capacity of the husband and the evidence of Praveen Kumar (NAW-3) that the respondent-husband earns Rs. 25,000/- per month from rent. It has been disbelieved only on the ground of non-submission of rent receipts, Moreover, we find that in the cross-examination of the appellant-wife, evidence has come to the effect that the husband is financially sound and affluent having shops and earning rent. It cannot be lost sight of that the appellant is having a minor son, which she is required to maintain. Therefore, though we affirm the decree of divorce, we enhance the amount of permanent alimony from Rs. 4,50,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/-. Only to that extent, the appellant is entitled to relief. 42. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree insofar as award of permanent alimony is concerned is modified and the respondent-husband is directed to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife within a period of three months. Impugned judgment and decree is accordingly modified only to the extent of enhancing the amount of permanent alimony. The decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is affirmed. The appeal is partly allowed. 43. The parties shall appear their respective costs. 44. Let appellate decree be accordingly drawn. Accordingly Misc. Appeal Disposed of.