The main legal point established in the judgment is that willful denial of sexual intercourse by a spouse can constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

1. These two appeals are filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In FAO 233/2003, the appellant-husband has challenged the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2003 passed by the Court of the learned ADJ, Delhi in HMA No.453/02 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. In MAT.APP 41/2008 the challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Court of the ADJ in HMA No.331/06 whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was decreed in favour of the respondent wife leading to the dissolution of marriage between the parties.

2. First I propose to deal with the appeal bearing Mat.App.41/2008 wherein the challenge has been made by the appellant to the decree of divorce passed by the learned trial court as the fate of other appeal filed by the appellant bearing FAO No.233/2003 would depend on the outcome of the decision in Mat.App.41/2008.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeals are that the appellant husband had invited matrimonial alliance through a newspaper advertisement seeking a working wife in response to which the bio data of the respondent wife was received and consequently the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.5.2001 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The respondent wife besides citing other instances of neglect by the appellant claimed that the marriage between the parties was not consummated which caused her mental cruelty on account of which she filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The grievance raised by the appellant husband on the other hand is that the respondent wife duped him by falsely projecting herself to be a working woman and due to which after marriage he refused to have any relationship with her till the time she produced the requisite certificates. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.2008 , the learned trial court passed a decree of divorce thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties and feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Mr.J.C.Mahindroo, learned counsel appearing for the appellant laid much stress on the fact that the appellant was fully justified in not maintaining physical relations with the respondent as she did not disclose the correct facts in her bio-data. Counsel also argued that the respondent had exposed herself on account of her blatant and repeated refusal to furnish the educational certificates and she had thus hatched a conspiracy in collusion with her brothers and sister-in-law and ultimately left the matrimonial home on 01.07.2001. Counsel also argued that the respondent had lodged a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell leveling false allegations of non-return of dowry articles including the articles which did not constitute her istridhan. Counsel also argued that the divorce petition filed by the respondent is a counter blast to the petition of restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant prior to the filing of the divorce petition. While denying all the allegations of cruelty leveled by the respondent in her divorce petition, the counsel for the appellant categorically took a stand that the marriage was duly consummated and the appellant had only desired that his wife should furnish all the requisite certificates so as to enable him to look for her employment, as he wanted that they should not have any child till they were financially sound. The counsel for the appellant also gave explanation that at Shimla the parties could not have any physical relations on account of the presence of the children of brother and sister of the respondent in the same room and also when they were travelling in the first class compartment where four persons were occupying the coupe. Counsel also argued that the appellant had also produced the medical certifica