The main legal point established is that instances of cruelty and desertion, as defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, can lead to the dissolution of marriage.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife questioning the legality of the judgment and decree dated February 28, 2015 passed by the Family Court in HMA Petition No. 246/2014 (Old No.527/11) dissolving her marriage with the respondent.

2. Alleging cruelty and desertion against the appellant/wife the respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) praying for dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce. The Family Court allowed the petition on both the grounds.

3. The background of this failed marriage is the emotional setback suffered by the appellant, who was unmarried, but married to a divorcee. She was unable to reconcile to the hard reality that she was a ‘second wife’ and that her husband was ‘second hand’.

4. The parties got married on December 12, 2005 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage status of the parties was as under:-

(i) Husband	41 years	Hindu divorcee
(ii) Wife	41 years	Hindu unmarried

5. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at the behest of brother of the appellant/wife who was interested in getting his sister married though she had already crossed the marriageable age. The brother of the appellant/wife found the respondent/husband to be a good match for his sister, may be for the reason there was no age difference between the two and the respondent was also issueless.

6. The ring ceremony was performed on December 11, 2005 and on the next date i.e. on December 12, 2005 marriage was solemnized in a simple ceremony without any dowry.

7. Instead of heading for honeymoon, the respondent/husband took his wife to Vrindavan, may be to seek divine blessings for the success of his second marriage and returned from there on the same night. The trouble started from the very next day i.e. December 14, 2005 as the appellant/wife noticed that the attaché-case containing her sarees was not traceable for which she blamed the sister of the appellant/husband. When the attaché-case was located, same day she was asked to keep the sarees in the almirah. But she refused to keep her sarees in a used almirah cribbing that everything is second hand in her life. The tension was further aggravated when the friend (PW-2) of the respondent/husband came to invite the couple on December 15, 2005 for lunch. The invitation was declined by her while insulting and humiliating the respondent/husband and his friend who was there to extend the invitation. The family of the appellant/wife was apprised of her conduct who tried to counsel her and assured of her good conduct in future. The respondent/husband was not even getting home cooked breakfast as she insisted for having food from outside. This became a regular feature and was unaffordable.

8. On December 19, 2005 another friend of the respondent/husband called on phone to invite them for dinner. When he was trying to express his inability to accept the invitation, while he was still on line his wife started shouting and insulting him. The quarrelsome nature of the appellant/wife even caused annoyance to the landlord and on December 22, 2005 i.e. within 10 days of marriage, the landlord asked them to vacate the rented accommodation. When this conduct of the appellant/wife was brought to the notice of her brother she even did not spare him and asked him to get out of the house or she would throw him. She also warned the respondent/husband not to involve her family members in future. When the respondent/husband saw his wife visiting the bathroom wearing high heels, he asked her to wear the slippers to which she commented that everything was second hand there; second hand husband, second hand almirah and second hand slippers.

9. On January 07, 2006 Dr. Khatri, a family friend invited them for a ‘Jagran’. The respondent/husband somehow persuaded his wife to attend the function but t