( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 10 of the indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of marriage on behalf of wife-petitioner on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. This trite trinity has been responsible for large number of broken marriages. Apart from this, there is allegation that respondent is medically unfit to impregnate the petitioner as he is suffering from Polycystic Kidney Disease which means he is capable of sexual intercourse but not able to make the wife conceive.

( 2 ) THE parties entered into wedlock on 7. 8. 1991. The petitioner possessed postgraduate degree in Chemistry at the time of marriage and completed her Ph. D. after her marriage. She is presently working as P. G. T. in a government Senior Secondary School. The respondent is a photographer by profession. After marriage she started living with her in laws at 1 B. P. , Maurya Enclave, M. I. G. Flats, Pitampura (Poorvi) Delhi. She stayed there from august, 1991 to 2nd week of September, 1991.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that respondent no. 1 before marriage was working and studying at Russia and came to india for the purpose of marriage and lived here from august, 199 1/10/1991 whereafter he left for russia. Since the petitioner was doing research work at banaras Hindu University, Varansi, she along with respondent no. 1 came there to apprise him about the research work. Respondent no. 1 left for Russia in october, 1991. The petitioner stayed with her parents to prosecute her study from mid of November, 1991 to 2 3/12/1991 and rejoined her husband when he came back from Russia on 25/12/1991 and stayed with him till 1st week of March, 1992. For completing her remaining research work, she came back to Varansi and remained there upto 23/06/1992 and returned to Delhi on 30/06/1992 and started living with her in-laws. Respondent no. 1 came to Delhi in 1st week of July, 1992 and remained here till November, 1992.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that respondent no. 1 never wanted the petitioner to accompany him to Russia despite her passport but she could not get her visa as respondent no. 1 refused to cooperate with her. Respondent no. 1 revealed to her that he has married her only with the purpose that his parents are looked after by the petitioner in his absence. According to the petitioner during her honeymoon at Mussorie, she could not get any love and affection from her husband.

( 5 ) THOUGH respondent no. 1 has been proceeded ex-parte as he did not appear after filing written statement yet every allegation including that of adultery has been denied by him. According to him, after living with him for one month, the petitioner insisted on doing her Ph. D. at Varansi where her parents resided but he did not like her to continue her studies as he wanted him to accompany him to Russia where he was,employed. About the allegations of his being medically unfit, he put entire blame on her. According to him, it was the petitioner who alone avoided sex with him as she did not want to conceive. The allegations of mental and physical harassment by him and his parents have been emphatically denied. According to respondent no-1, petitioner used to go away from the residence without any prior information to the respondent or his parents and would come back very late and respondent and his parents were kept under constant threat of involvement in false cases in case they dared to question her conduct. She even used to leave the station with her boy friends without the consent/knowledge of respondent no. 1 or his parents many a times and always refused to accompany him to Russia. It was her who deserted him by leaving matrimonial house. He also denied having any sexual relations with any girls as alleged by the petitioner. The allegations of mental and physical harassment were also denied by respondent no. 1. According to him, she never wanted to stay with him as she wanted to pursue her research work.

( 6 ) SINCE the respondents were proceeded ex-parte as they did