- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It being settled law that false allegations of dowry harassment if proved through the medium of acquittal of the husband at the trial for offences punishable u/s 498-A/406 IPC constitute cruelty, on this ground alone the appeal must fail for the reason FIR pursuant way to the husband was tried for offences punishable u/s 323, 341, 498-A, 406 and 494 IPC read with sec. 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was acquitted. With this backdrop, we note that the evidence which has been appraised by the learned Judge Family Court brings out that the husband sought consortium when he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but did not prosecute the same since the appellant refused to go back to the matrimonial house. He then sought divorce. In her testimony the appellant admitted that preceeding eight or nine years before when the petition seeking divorce on ground of cruelty and desertion was filed she was living in her parental house and made no attempts to join consortium with the husband.
(3.) We need not pen a lengthy judgment for the reason the learned Trial Judge has appreciated the testimony of the witnesses and for the purposes of the appeal it would suffice to bring home the point that reason given by the appellant to leave the husband being acts of violence on account of demand of dowry have been held to be false. The husband has been acquitted of the offences under various sections of the ? and Dowry Prohibition Act as noted hereinabove.;