Rathnakala, J.

The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below whereby her petition for divorce filed under Section 13(l)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act') is dismissed. Respondent though served through paper publication, is unrepresented.

2. Brief facts of the case is, the appellant/wife filed divorce petition contending that she married the respondent on 7.8.2003 at Bengaluru, as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, the couple resided together for some days at Bengaluru, then shifted to Hyderabad and thereafter to Mumbai where husband harassed her for money and snatched all her valuables. Mother of the wife had to borrow money from her friends and relatives to fulfil the demands of the husband. He used to physically abuse her for not getting sufficient money from her parents. He used to snatch away money from her using her debit and credit card as she was working at that point of time. Further, he used to come home at late night drunk and pick up quarrel with her. On 05.09.2010, husband left the house in the early morning without informing her and absconded along with her cash, gold and silver articles. She filed a complaint at Mumbai against the husband in the local police station and returned to Bengaluru. She again filed a complaint against the husband before Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station and the case was registered in Crime No. 438/2010 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Sections 34 and 379 of IPC. Legal notice issued to him has returned unserved. Hence, the petition for decree of divorce and also for return of gold jewellry and cash of Rs. 20 Lakhs. Husband remained ex parte and wife examined herself as PW 1 and produced 4 documents.

3. The learned Judge while declining to grant relief to the wife observes that at para-6 of the petition, she pleaded that the husband demanded money from her mother and took away the gold ornaments from her custody under the guise of developing his business. In the same running para, she had pleaded that all her gold ornaments weighing 1 kg and silver articles worth of Rs. 8 to 10 lakhs were snatched away from her. In the subsequent para, she had pleaded that on 05.09.2010, husband absconded with jewellry and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. Further, in the complaint lodged before Charkop Police, Kandiwalli West, Mumbai, she had alleged that on 05.09.2010, husband left the house in the early morning along with her jewellries around 60 grams, but there was no mention about cash of Rs. 50,000/-. In the complaint lodged before Kumaraswamy Layout Police on 20.09.2010, she had averred that husband left the matrimonial home with mangalyasara, neck chain and finger ring weighing about 60 grams. According to the learned Judge, these allegations even if were to be proved, it cannot be taken as act of cruelty warranting to dissolution of the marriage. The other facts that counted upon the learned trial Judge to dismiss the petition was, she did not examine her mother and brother who allegedly had paid the money to her husband in compliance of his demand. That prompted the learned Judge to observe that the case of the petitioner is beset with impropriety, contradictions and inconsistency. The learned Judge while concluding his discussion referring to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, further holds that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged instances of cruelty making of the ground for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Act, the case was dismissed.

4. Section 23 of the Act has influenced the learned Trial Court to deny relief to the wife though it was an uncontested matter. Section 23(1) (b) is the relevant provision in respect of the prayer made under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act reads thus:

23. Decree in proceedings. (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i