S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 7. 4. 1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appellant/husband's petition, HMA. No. 274/83, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`act' ).

( 2 ) THE parties were married on February 12, 1980 in Agra according to hindu religious rites and lived for 8 days thereafter in the first instance. They again lived together for a very brief while between April 21 and April 23 of 1980.

( 3 ) IN support of his plea that he had been treated cruelly by the respondent, the Appellant husband cited three specific instances. The first was that the

"respondent's behaviour was arrogant, irritating, insulting and nagging and she created scenes in the house and refused to serve even tea to the friends and visitors of the appellant".

The second was that on April 21, 1980

"the respondent quarrelled with the wife of the maternal aunt of the petitioner Shri ami Chand at his house without any justification".

The third was that

"on April 5, 1981 in order to pressurise the petitioner to succumb to her unreasonable demand she sent a gang of 17 persons to his father when he was attending Pooja at a temple of Sri Krishan Mandir, Patparganj Road, Khureji, Delhi. They insulted and intimidated his father openly with dire consequences and also threatened not to allow the brother and sister of the petitioner to be married in the brotherhood if the petitioner failed to act as to whims and pleasure of the respondent".

( 4 ) THE appellant examined himself as PW-1. In his cross-examination he admitted that although he was working in the Cabinet Secretariat, he was mostly posted on the borders at non-family stations. He also stated that at the time of marriage, he had been posted in Srinagar and that before he was again transferred to Delhi in 1981, he never visited Agra, where the Respondent was staying. Therefore, he came to know of the misbehaviour of the Respondent during this period from his parents, brother and sister.

( 5 ) TWO other witnesses were examined on the side of the appellant. The first was PW-2, Jai Singh who deposed about the incident of April 5, 1981 when the father of the Respondent had come for a meeting and discussion about the dispute between the parties. The next witness, Shri Madho Singh, PW-3 also spoke of the meeting of April 5, 1981.

( 6 ) THE Respondent examined herself as RW-1 and maintained that it was she who had been ill-treated at her husband's house. She denied that her father had threatened the appellant in the manner alleged or that she ever misbehaved with the appellant. RW-2, Purshotam Singh, RW-3, Dhiraj Singh and RW-4, Moti lal, father of the Respondent, have all supported the version of the Respondent.

( 7 ) AFTER analyzing the evidence, the Trial Court in a detailed judgment has returned the following findings:

(a) The total number of days when the petitioner and his wife were living together were 11 and the total number of days the respondent lived at the house of the petitioner were 18. (b) The allegations made by the appellant against the respondent to show that she had treated him cruelly were of a general nature. The Trial Court found: "except that she had refused to serve tea to friends and visitors and that she had quarrelled with the wife of the maternal uncle of the petitioner Shri Ami chand on April 21, 1980, no mis-conduct or mis-demeanour has been specified by the petitioner". (c) The non-production of Shri Ami Chand or his wife, with whom the Respondent is alleged to have quarrelled "gives rise to an adverse presumption against the petitioner's case". (d) Although in the petition it was alleged that on April 5, 1981, the respondent sent a gang of 17 persons to Delhi to threaten him and his family, the appellant did not allege "that the father of the respondent with 16 persons had c