Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. This appeal, preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) assails the judgment/order dated 30.08.2010 passed by Ms. Seema Maini, ADJ (3) North, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in HMA No.125/2009 preferred by the appellant/petitioner/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground that, after the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent/husband treated the petitioner/wife with cruelty. The learned ADJ dismissed the divorce petition by the impugned judgment.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.10.2006 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Durga Bari, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were 41 and 48 years of age respectively. The respondent was a divorcee. For the petitioner/wife, it was the first marriage.

3. The case of the appellant/ petitioner was that after the marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife. However, no issue was born out of their wedlock.

4. The petitioner averred that after the marriage, she was taken to Bombay (Mumbai) at the matrimonial house on 10.11.2006, after a short trip to Kullu-Manali. At the time of marriage, the respondent represented that he had no demand of dowry, or any other article. However, the father of the petitioner had given articles/jewellery, etc, as the petitioner is his only daughter. After the marriage, the respondent started harassing and torturing the petitioner by stating that the items which were given at the time of marriage by the petitioners father, were insufficient. Soon after the marriage, all the jewellery and other articles of the petitioner were taken by the respondent and the petitioner, believing that he is acting in good faith, gave her jewellery, cash, etc. to the respondent, which was still being kept and retained by him. The respondent would tell the petitioner that there were several other offers for marriage with him, from persons who were willing to give much more dowry than what was given by the petitioners father. The petitioner also averred that the respondent used to abuse, and even beat the petitioner, during her stay at the matrimonial house for not bringing sufficient dowry according to his wishes. The efforts of the petitioner to make the respondent understand that her father had given enough dowry in marriage, and to be satisfied with what was given by the petitioners father was not heeded to, and his greed was not satisfied. He continued to harass and torture the petitioner mentally and physically and also abused the father of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner also averred that after some time of marriage, the respondent started insisting that the petitioners house situated at Saket, New Delhi, which was in the name of the petitioner, be transferred to his name. On refusal of the petitioner to do so, the respondent abused the petitioner and her father by using filthy language. He did not show any respect either for the petitioner, or for her father. The torture and beatings grew to such an extent that the petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial home at Mumbai on 24.11.2006 after staying there for only 14 days.

6. The petitioner states that after few days, the respondent came to Delhi and apologized for his behavior and promised that he would now behave in a proper manner towards the petitioner and assured that he would not repeat his earlier conduct. The petitioner being a Hindu devoted wife, believed the said version of the respondent and, accordingly, accompanied the respondent to Mumbai on 12.12.2006.

7. The petitioner states that during the journey from Delhi to Mumbai itself, the respondent again showed his true colours by ignoring the petitioner and not caring for her requirements of food, water and other things. On the railway station, the respondent snatched the luggage of the petitioner and went to his house leaving the