S. MURALIDHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3. 2. 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in H. M. A. Case No 294 of 1996. By the impugned judgment the appellant's petition seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 ("act") was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE parties were married on 25. 6. 1994 at Delh. The appellant states that the marriage was not properly consummated because the respondent never offered herself for a complete sexual intercourse with the appellant. No child was, therefore, born from the wedlock. It is stated that neither the respondent nor her parents disclosed the actual age and physical condition of the respondent prior to the marriage. It is stated that the appellant was not aware that the respondent was older than the appellant and therefore the very foundation of the marriage was based on false and incorrect information given by the respondent. It is stated that after the marriage, the respondent did not do regular household work. The appellant was forced to wash his own clothes and that caused mental torture to the appellant. Frequent verbal altercations led to the breakdown of the marriage.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that the respondent never gave the appellant complete sexual satisfaction and would stop the sexual intercourse after a very short span. This caused tremendous torture to the appellant. It is stated that the respondent behaved like this on the first night of marriage and throughout the honeymoon the respondent would become violent during the acts of sexual intercourse. The appellant states that she tried to seek medical assistance from expert doctors but even after one year"s continuous treatment there was no improvement in the behaviour of the respondent. It is stated that after one such incident on 5. 3. 1996 when the appellant complained, the parents of the respondent threatened that the appellant would face dire consequences. They took away the respondent with them and that since then the parties have remained separate.

( 4 ) THE written statement filed by the respondent is one of denial. It is stated that the appellant was a sexual pervert, handled the respondent roughly and did not consider her true emotions and feelings. The appellant left a very negative impression on the mind of the respondent. It is stated because of his behaviour, the respondent was under a great shock and mental tension in the new atmosphere in her matrimonial home and therefore, in the early days she could not adjust herself. It is denied that her actual age and physical condition were concealed. It is stated that the father of the respondent and father of the appellant are teachers and it was only after examining all the certificates that the marriage was arranged. It is stated that the respondent was not suffering from any ailment as alleged. The respondent was constantly harassed by the appellant, his elder brother and his parents for not bringing any dowry and was tortured on that count. On account of the demand for dowry, she was driven out of her matrimonial home on 5. 3. 1996. It is stated that attempts were made to sort out the differences but these remained unsuccessful because of the adamant attitude of the appellant and his family members.

( 5 ) THE appellant appeared as a solitary witness and reiterated his version as narrated in the petition. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the marriage was an arranged one and that the parents of both parties had known each other and were on good terms. He denied the suggestion that he had treated the respondent cruelly or that she had willingly surrendered herself for the consummation of the marriage. He denied the demand for dowry or the allegations that he had treated the respondent cruelly and driven her from the matrimonial home for not bringing dowry. He stated that he had not lodged any complaint before the police about the threats