Acts of cruelty must be specifically pleaded in a petition for divorce. Desertion, for the purposes of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, requires a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the wife is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 27th Nov. 1980 dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between Maya Devi, appellant and Brij Nath-respondent was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 10th July, 1970. The husband filed the petition for divorce under S. 13 of the Act alleging acts of cruelty and further stating that the wife had deserted him in Jan. 1975. The wife denied the alleged acts of cruelty. The trial court disbelieved the pleaded acts of cruelty but granted a decree on an alleged act of cruelty which was never pleaded by the respondent. The court further held that the wife was guilty of desertion. Hence this appeal by the wife,

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that as the offence of desertion and the pleaded act of cruelty have not been proved, the divorce petition was liable to be dismissed. He submits that the trial court was not justified in holding that the wife was guilty of any cruel act, which was never pleaded and that there was no evidence of desertion. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the trial court was wrong in rejecting the pleaded acts of cruelty. He further submits that the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce on both the grounds of cruelty and desertion. I have thus to deal with all the alleged acts of cruelty and the allegation of desertion against the appellant-wife.

( 3 ) THE respondent-husband in his petition for divorce has alleged the following acts of cruelty :

(I) The behaviour of the wife from the date of marriage has been rude towards him, she has been reluctant to discharge her marital obligations, she did not respond to sexual intercourse resulting in mental as well as physical cruelty to him, she has always been eager to go to her parents house, that on Diwali festival in 1974 he arranged for two tickets to witness a show at Vishal Cinema, and requested her to go to cinema but she refused and lost her temper. She started quarrelling and abusing him. She did not prepare food and he had to prepare himself. (ii) That on 1st Jan. 1975 he with his wife and two friends went for lunch in a hotel where the wife cursed him and started misbehaving and created a public scene.

( 4 ) THE husband has further alleged that the wife left matrimonial home in the first week of Jan. 1975 and since then she has not turned up, that he has not been aware of her whereabouts since then in spite of his best efforts, that she has withdrawn from his society without his consent and without any cause.

( 5 ) THE appellant-wife in her written statement has denied all the allegations. She alleges that she did not leave the matrimonial home in Jan. 1975, that after marriage she was never eager to stay with her parents, that she has always been discharging her marital obligations but her husband neglected her and therefore there was no issue from the wedlock, that her parents were not in a position to pay dowry worth Rs. 40,000. 00 to Rs. 50,000. 00 demanded by her husband and his parents, that her husband never had ticket for any cinema show on the day of Diwali festival in 1974, that relatives from her side came to their house and he was requested to take them to cinema but he mercilessly beat her. Her husband never took her to any hotel and there was no question of her misbehaviour, that she was given beating by sticks and was turned out from the matrimonial home in 1978, and since then she has been residing with her parents, that the disputes arose on account of dowry. She emphatically denies the alleged acts of cruelty and desertion. On the contrary she filed a counter-claim under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights alleging that her husband without reasonable excuse withdrew from her societ