The main legal point established in the judgment is that vague allegations of cruelty are not sufficient to grant divorce, and the onus to prove cruelty is on the appellant. The judgment also emphasizes the requirement of clean hands in filing for divorce and the need for proper evidence to substantiate allegations of cruelty.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for setting aside the impugned order dated 7th December, 2002 wherein the learned ADJ dismissed the petition of the appellant for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

2. On 26th September, 1971 the parties were married according to Hindu (sikh) rites. Out of this wedlock, two male issues were born namely Manpreet Singh born on 27th February, 1974 and Gurpreet Singh born on 5th March, 1977.

3. It was the case of the appellant before the learned Trial Court that during her stay with the appellant, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and denied/refused to co-habitat with the appellant.

4. The parties are living separately since January, 1995.

5. On or about 16th February, 1995, the appellant filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 7th December, 2002 against which the appellant had filed the present first appeal.

6. The divorce was sought under Section 13(1)(ia) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, it was alleged in the petition that the respondent/wife was a short tempered woman and did not give any respect to the appellant and his family. She used to humiliate them on small matters of domestic routine and always forced the appellant to leave his parental house. There used to be quarrels which was unbearable for the appellant and his family members. Many occasions the appellant used to call up the respondent’s father who would then interfere in their matrimonial life. On one occasion when the appellant returned from his official tour from Bhubneshwar, the respondent completely stopped talking to him for without any reasons and the matrimonial discord only worsened. Even when the father of the appellant suffered a heart attack, the respondent did not come to see him and even refused to cook or serve food to him. The respondent was working as a teacher but refused to contribute her salary towards the household, the appellant alone had to incur expenses relating to upkeep of the house and education of the children. Thereafter on account of intolerable behavior of the respondent, the appellant had to leave his matrimonial house and has developed condition of high blood pressure. The respondent also denied cohabitation to the appellant and that made his life unhappy and caused him mental agony.

7. The respondent filed a Written Statement wherein she has admitted the marriage between the parties but vehemently denied the allegations levelled against her in the petition. It was alleged that it was the appellant who used to abuse his own family. There was conflict amongst the family members. It was specifically denied that the respondent had forced the appellant to leave his parents. However, it was admitted by her that they were residing at a rented accommodation at Defense Colony. She has stated that the appellant himself was unhappy residing in joint family in view of small accommodation available. As the financial position of the parties was critical the respondent was compelled to find a job as none of the family members had come in support. The appellant shifted to a government accommodation not at the behest of the respondent but because it was convenient for him as it was close to his office. Thereafter after the birth of their first child, the relationship with the appellant’s parent became cordial and they shifted back to their matrimonial home, where they were asked to build one room and for doing so the respondent had to raise money. Thereafter, once again the appellant started misbehaving with his parents and was asked to leave and the parties shifted to Lajpat Nagar. Thereafter a plot was purchased at Pitampura for which the appellant had sold her jewellery and some money was taken from her father. The appellant did not have cordial relations with the landlord and once again