The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of mental cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, along with the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The petitioners husband, Sanjay Sao has filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 passed by Sri Shashi Kant Singh, the learned Additional District Judge, Lakhisarai in Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 56 of 2004 dismissing the appellants suit for divorce.

2. The appellant filed the aforesaid suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce alleging that he was married with Manju Devi on 6.6.1996 according to the Hindu religion. After marriage, Manju Devi came to his house and lived with him as husband and wife for about six months. After six months, without informing him, Manju Devi went to Lucknow to her parents house where her father was in service. After 7-8 months, the appellant went to Lucknow to bring her but she refused to come with him. In the year 2000i when he went to her fathers house, he came to know that she is not living there rather she is living in the house of Shanker Sao in Village-Kiul Basti, District-Lakhisarai who is Bahnoi (Jija) of Manju Devi. Thereafter, the appellant approached Shanker Sao several times and also he went to Kiul Basti to bring her but Shanker did not allow Manju Devi to go with the appellant. In the month of June, again the appellant went to the house of Shanker and stayed there for two days and then he came to know about the illicit relationship with Shanker Sao and Manju Devi, who were living in adultery since 3-4 years. The respondent, Manju Devi is not living with the appellant as husband and wife since January, 1997 and there was no co-habitation for 7 years prior to the institution of the suit.

3. The wife, Manju Devi appeared and filed a contesting written statement denying all the allegations made by the husband. Her case in short is that the marriage was not held in the temple of Lord Shiva at Ashok Dham, Lakhisarai rather it was held in the house of Manju Devi at Gopalpur. The respondent lived at Pali with the husband as his wife only for about 15 days and not six months. Thereafter, she went with him to New Delhi. She lived there for about 4 months. After Duragaman, she again went with her husband and stayed with husband till January, 2004. Thereafter, in the said month, she came with her husband to her fathers house at Lucknow. Thereafter, several times also, she went to Sasural i.e. Delhi from Lucknow where there was last cohabitation between them. She denied that she came to her Naihar without the consent of her husband on each and every opportunity. Whenever she visited her Naihar, she went with the consent of her husband and with the husband.

4. The respondent further denied that after 7-8 months, the husband came to Lucknow to bring back and she refused to go with him. According to her, whenever her husband came to her Naihar, she always returned back with the husband after staying for about 4 or 5 days at her Naihar. It is also alleged that it is false to say that in the year 2000, he learnt that she was living with her brother-in-law at Kiul Basti, Lakhisarai. The other allegation about adultery is also denied. The wife, Manju Devi further alleged that her father retired from service and she with her husband went to Lucknow where Sanjay Sao demanded the total retiral amount from her father and he left the wife there at Lucknow threatening that if demand is not fulfilled, she will be forced to reside with her father. Thereafter, she went to Delhi with her father, brother-in-law, uncle and well wishers of the family members several times to live there but she was subjected to cruelty by his family members in connection with demand of dowry. Lastly, her husband forcibly took her to Gopalpur in the month of Sawan, 2003 and left there. Thereafter, the husband never came to her. She is still ready to live with him and she denied to have ever refused to live with the appellant. They lived together as husband and wife till Sawan, 2003 and not January, 1997.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of the par