The legal principle of condonation and revival of matrimonial offences was central to the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of proving specific acts of cruelty and the lack of corroborative evidence.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as ‘HMA’) has been preferred to assail the judgment & decree dated 31.07.2012, passed in HMA No.251/2010 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant/wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage in her favour and against the respondent/husband.

2. The facts as delineated in the petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.06.2002 at 20/194-195, Tirlokpuri, Delhi, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and two issues namely Baby K and Master A were born out of the wedlock.

3. The appellant asserts that after the marriage both the parties started living together at 20/302 Kalyanpuri, Delhi, along with her in-laws. She claims that the respondent and his family members started taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry. They started harassing her for not bringing a motorcycle and cash with her. She alleges that after the birth of a baby girl i.e on 28.09.2003, the respondent started torturing her, as he wanted a male child. The respondent started demanding that she brings money from her parents, for repayment of his personal debt. She alleged that on 06.07.2007, the respondent, while compelling her to bring money for repayment of his personal debt, picked up a fight and started beating her mercilessly. The local police was called and the respondent was arrested and produced before the Court. He was also sent to judicial custody for three days. She further alleged that on 14.07.2007, the appellant was again beaten, and she sustained several injuries and was medically examined vide MLC No. 7567/07, Cr. No. 81286 dated 14.07.2007. Further, in the month of July 2008, when the appellant got pregnant for the second time, she was again tortured, physically and mentally. The appellant, thus, left the matrimonial home on 09.01.2009 and started living with her parents.

4. In the written statement filed by the respondent/husband, he denied all the allegations. The respondent took various preliminary objections, stating that the appellant had concealed material facts and had not approached the court with clean hands. It was further stated that it was the appellant and her family members who had committed acts of cruelties upon the respondent.

5. After the relevant issues were framed, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Trial Court on assessing the evidence on record, dismissed the petition.

6. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the acts of cruelty attributed to the respondent had been condoned by the appellant. The fact that there is no whisper about forcible/ non consensual intercourse between the parties, which ultimately lead to conception and birth of the child namely Master A on 19.03.2009, is clinching proof of condonation of the acts of cruelty allegedly committed by the respondent/husband prior to July 2008 - when the appellant got pregnant for the second time. The Court came to the conclusion that the appellant/wife has not explained the circumstances in which she came to lead and live a normal sexual life with the respondent, even after the alleged series of acts of cruelties on his part. The Court also came to the conclusion that the appellant has not proved a single act of cruelty committed by respondent after July 2008 with any corroborative evidence, and that there is no specific time, date and incident – constituting cruelty, mentioned in the petition, relating to the period after July 2008. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since the very inception of the marriage, the respondent and his family members started harassing and torturing the appellant for not bringing a motor cycle and cash according to their expectations. He s