JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Heard. 2. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in civil suit No.167-A of 2016, whereby a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. 3. The facts of the case are that a petition seeking divorce was preferred by the husband. The parties were married on 24.2.2012 and out of the wedlock a child was born on 28.12.2013. It is contended by the husband that after the birth of the child, in a function named Chhatti at village Tulsi on 04.2.2014 some dispute took place in public and the wife started to demand to go back to her parental home on 05.2.2014. Despite all efforts made to stay her back she did not agree to it and an agreement Exhibit P2 was executed between them wherein she agreed that she does not want to stay with her husband and wanted to go back to her parental home. Husband further contended that during her stay in the matrimonial house, she used to abuse the family members of husband on trivial issues. He further contended that taking into consideration her behavior, the Doctor has advised her for psychiatric counselling, but, whenever she was advised to go for such counselling, she opposed it and abused & misbehaved with the family members of the husband, which amounts to cruelty. He further stated that from 05.2.2014 she was staying separately with her child and resuming the matrimonial ties would be difficult, as such, the prayer was made for decree of divorce. 4. The wife in reply came out with a defense that by exerting undue pressure, an agreement was executed on 05.2.2014 and got signed by her. In the circumstance, during the function in house she was forced to sign on a blank paper. Wife further contended that the only fault by her was that she wanted to go back to her parental home for 01-2 months after the delivery, at such point of time, she was forced to sign the stamp paper. Wife further contented that since her sister-in-law was the Sarpanch of the village, despite request made by her father, nobody came in support. Wife further contented that since her sister-in-law was the Sarpanch of the village, despite request made by her father, nobody came in support. She further stated that while she was being treated during her pregnancy and was taken to the Doctors, the husband used to misbehave in the public, for which he was advised by the Doctor to behave properly with wife during the pregnancy. She further stated that the execution of the alleged agreement on 05.2.2014 was done by keeping her father in captivity and she was forced to sign and without any reason she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. Because of the torture meted out to her by the husband and his family members, the husband is not entitled to a decree of divorce. 5. The learned Family Court, on the basis of the pleading framed the issue of cruelty and held it in the favour of the husband to hold that he is entitled for divorce. Hence, this appeal by the wife. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant / wife would submit that the agreement on which the respondent/ husband was banking upon, was outcome of a coercion and undue influence. Referring to the document Exhibit P2, she would submit that date of purchase of stamp paper is of 03.2.2014, i.e., before the date of the incident. She would further submit that this solitary incident would reflect that husband has pre-planned the entire conspiracy to create a case of desertion. She further would submit that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the statement made by her during her counselling that she exceeded to demand of Rs.10 Lacs, and also failed to appreciate that since the husband did not want to keep her and no alternate was left with her, therefore, the said statement was made and the same cannot be read in isolation. She would further submit that the entire reading of the statement of the wife would show that nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, as such, the finding of the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / husband would submit that the judgment and decree of divorce is well merited and do not call for interference. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / husband would submit that the judgment and decree of divorce is well merited and do not call for interference. Referring to the agreement Exhibit P2, he would submit that the wife herself has deserted the husband and she made a statement during her counselling that she does not want to come back. Therefore, there being no alternate course left, the learned Family Court taking into consideration various factors and the conduct of wife, came to a conclusion that the wife has treated the husband with cruelty, therefore, the appeal does not have any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence on record. 9. The date of marriage and the birth of child subsequent thereto is not in dispute. The allegations have been made that dispute inflated for the first time on 04.2.2014, in a ceremony named Chhatti at village Tulsi. It is stated that before all the guests, the wife wanted to go back with her parents on 05.2.2014, therefore, an ikrarnama (agreement) dated 05.2.2014 which is marked as Exhibit P2 was executed. 10. In the agreement Exhibit P2, it is written that on 05.2.2014 wife of her own wanted to go back with her parents as she could not continue the marital relation in her in-laws place, therefore, it further shows that she admitted the fact that she was kept according to her own will at her in-laws place. As against this, the wife had stated that after the marriage she was subjected to torture for demand of motorcycle and other household goods. She further stated that after birth of a female child, husband along with mother-in-law, father-in-law kept a ceremony named Chhatti, at their village Tulsi wherein parents of the wife were also invited. She further stated that after delivery she was very weak along with the child and she was not being treated properly, under these circumstances, her father expressed his desire to take his daughter along with the child for a certain period with them and there the dispute inflated. She further stated that after delivery she was very weak along with the child and she was not being treated properly, under these circumstances, her father expressed his desire to take his daughter along with the child for a certain period with them and there the dispute inflated. The wife further stated that they came out with the document Exhibit P2, so much so, her father was kept in captivity with a threat that unless she signs the document, she will not be allowed to go and the father will not be released from captivity, therefore, the signature was taken on a stamp paper and thereafter, she came back with her father at her parental home. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that execution of the document Exhibit P2 was orchestrated and pre-planned can be inferred from the fact that the stamp paper was purchased on 03.2.2014 by Devendra (husband / respondent). The circumstances of the fact shows that on a spur of the moment, on a dispute, when erupted in between the family members, the wife was made to sign the papers to allow her to go along with her parents, it implies on the preponderance of probability that execution of Exhibit P2 was premeditated and pre-planned as naturally as a spur of moment, procurement of stamp, could not be possible, but, preparation of such document prior to the date shows the state of mind. Therefore, the submission of the appellant would naturally holds the sway to draw an inference against the document Exhibit P2 otherwise to say that it was not volunteered and otherwise was outcome of coercion and unduly inference. 12. The witnesses adduced by the husband/ respondent would show that the allegation of mental illness has been attributed to the wife. The document Exhibit P4 which is a document of Maternity Nursing Home, before the birth of the child, at a place reflects that it was advised that psychiatric counselling may be required. The Doctors have not been examined in this case, whereas the witnesses adduced on behalf of the husband stated that disputes arose between husband and wife were on trivial issues including to watch channel on the Television, therefore, they felt it that wife was suffering from some mental disorder. 13. The Doctors have not been examined in this case, whereas the witnesses adduced on behalf of the husband stated that disputes arose between husband and wife were on trivial issues including to watch channel on the Television, therefore, they felt it that wife was suffering from some mental disorder. 13. The suggestion during the pregnancy about psychiatric counselling can also lead to draw that during such period, a woman undergoes psychological, biological and hormonal changes which may also needs psychiatric counselling, but the same cannot be inferred to be of a mental disorder. 14. Wife on the other hand has resisted the allegations clamped upon her about some mental disorder. It is obvious that when the allegation is clamped on mental disorder then it may have a counter reaction from a person. Had there been any actual mental disorder, it should have been established by the admissible evidence before the learned Family Court which may otherwise could have been co related with cruelty of the wife towards the husband. 15. The learned trial Court has further observed that wife during the counselling admitted the fact that she is ready for divorce provided 10 Lacs is paid. Perusal of such statement of the wife shows that the said statement was qualified in the backdrop of the fact that when husband refused to take her back the wife stated that if husband wants divorce she may be given Rs. 10 Lacs. The said statement cannot be read in isolation and the entire conduct and mental status and the background in which such statements are made, are required to be evaluated. Therefore, by reading of such statement it cannot be inferred that wife herself wanted the divorce. 16. The husband in his statement, in cross examination, admitted the fact that at the time of marriage his income was disclosed to be from Rs. 15000/- to 20000/- per month along with the fact that his father is in Government service. Subsequent state of fact with respect to the income and the affidavit filed before this Court the husband has projected himself to be a pauper with a small income and every income has been attributed to his father. Almost the income of the husband has shown to be nil. Reading of the statement of the husband nowhere deposed that how his income has been deflated. Almost the income of the husband has shown to be nil. Reading of the statement of the husband nowhere deposed that how his income has been deflated. The inference can also be drawn that if such false statement was made at the time of proposal of marriage of an inflated income to the wife and afterwards, if it comes to fore a negligible income irrespective of fact to strict proof of it in an judicial proceeding, it would also amount to making a false statement, synonym to a fraud to cause mental cruelty. 17. On overall assessment of the evidence, we are of the view that the cruelty instead was at the behest of the husband towards the wife and not otherwise. Therefore, we are unable to agree to sustain the finding of the trial Court and accordingly we set-aside the impugned judgment and decree. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 19. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to cost.