Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. A decree of divorce cannot be granted solely on the ground that a child was born prior to nine months from a relationship before marriage, as there is no provision in Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that permits divorce on this basis (!) (!) .

2. The petitioner could have filed a petition to declare the marriage void under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act, alleging that the respondent was pregnant by another person at the time of marriage, but such a case must be filed within one year of marriage, which was not done in this case (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court emphasized that allegations of illicit relationships and birth of a child prior to nine months from marriage do not constitute grounds for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Act, as no such provision exists (!) (!) .

4. The petitioner failed to produce cogent evidence of cruelty or any other valid grounds for divorce. The allegations were not substantiated, and the case was filed after a significant delay, approximately 11 years after marriage (!) (!) (!) .

5. The court noted that mere allegations without supporting evidence or specific instances of cruelty are insufficient to justify divorce (!) (!) .

6. The absence of disclosure regarding the identity of the person with whom the respondent was allegedly in illicit relationship, as well as the lack of vital dates concerning the child's birth and the petitioner’s knowledge thereof, weakened the case for voiding the marriage (!) (!) .

7. The court held that the procedural requirements under the relevant sections of the Act, including timely filing and disclosure of vital facts, were not met, which further invalidated the grounds for divorce claimed by the petitioner (!) (!) .

8. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the grounds presented did not warrant a decree of divorce under the applicable provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (!) .

In summary, the court concluded that the allegations made by the petitioner did not fall within the permissible grounds for divorce under the Act, and procedural lapses further invalidated the case.