16. It is the next contention on part of the respondent tha t the respond e nt is not working and is dependent on her parents. Perusal o f the record o f the case shows that in her pe t ition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. , it had been a lleged by the respondent that at the time of her marriage t o the petition e r on 15.03.2009, her parent s had spent Rs.16 lakh on th e wedding an d had given her 1 Bolero vehicl e , 35 tolas of gold, clothes and other valua b le items. From the above fact, it is clear that the responden t and her family are well placed in life. It is a lso further to be kept in mind that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent survived for les s than two ye a rs, and even no child is born o f their wedlock. The petitione r has already p aid maintenance in lakhs to t h e respondent. Admittedly, th e parties have been living separately for mor e than 13 years. Furthermore, i t is very relev a nt that the petitioner has bee n granted divorce on grounds o f cruelty and d esertion. As such, it cannot be stated that the respondent had sufficient c a use to leave the matrimoni a l home. In the judgment o f acquittal dated 22.09.2016, it has been recorded that the allegation s levelled by t h e respondent against the petit i oner and his family with regard to matrimo n ial cruelty were found to be f a lse. It was for this reason tha t the petition e r and his family were acquitt e d of all charges. It is also no t denied by t h e respondent that the petitio n er has the responsibility of hi s
