The main legal point established in the judgment is that the persistent refusal of a spouse to discharge marital obligations without any reason amounts to cruelty, justifying the dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE parties to this appeal were married on 3-6-1996. On 24-6-1998, the appellant-wife filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur. The grounds for seeking dissolution of marriage were stated to be that the husband and his relatives (mother and sister) treated her with cruelty. One aspect of the cruelty pleaded was continuous demand of dowry and nonfulfillment of demand of dowry by her parents resulting in cruel treatment by her husband and members of her husbands family. The specific instances of demand of dowry were pleaded that in the year 1997, demand was made for motorcycle. Demand of buffalo was also made, which was given by her father after purchasing the same for a sum of Rs. 7700/ -. She pleaded that her husband demanded a sum of Rs. 50. 000/-inter alia on the ground that his father was buying a separate plot for him. In this connection she averred that dissatisfaction about dowry resulted in insulting her. She also pleaded that on one occasion her father-in-law brought five litres of petrol and her father-in-law and husband threatened her that if she did not come back from her fathers place with motorcycle and Rs. 50. 000/-, she will be put to fire and propagate to be a case of suicide. When this harsh treatment was not diminished, her father came and took her to her parents house at village Heera Desar. In this connection, it was also pleaded by the applicant that on 3-3-1998 and 9-3-1998, her in-laws, which included her husband, father-in-law and other 5^7 persons whose names have been mentioned, came to her fathers place in jeep and motorcycle and they tried to forcibly take her from that place. She declined to go with them.

( 3 ) THE second ground of cruelty pleaded by the applicant was that since the date of marriage, the respondent has not tried to consummate the marriage till filing of the application on the pretext that he will discharge marital obligation when the applicant brings Rs. 50. 000/- from her fathers house. She also pleaded in para 5 that when the marriage was not consummated by her husband, she advised her husband that if there is any problem, a doctor may be consulted for medical treatment, but he declined. In para 6, she alleged that her husband is impotent and her husband knew about this fact, still by marrying her, he has put her into continuous mental agony.

( 4 ) AT the time of filing of the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a case was pending against the respondent and members of his family under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323, IPC. A copy of FIR is on the record of family Court, from which it appears that FIR was lodged on 15-4-1998. The cause of action for filing petition was stated to be that the applicant has been time and again harassed and beaten for dowry and that the husband of the applicant and the applicant have not consummated the marriage since the date of marriage till the filing of the application.

( 5 ) THE respondent denied the allegation about demand of dowry and asserted that the parents of the husband have kept the applicant very well in matrimonial home and the husband has not demanded at any time. In reply to the specific instance of demand of dowry, pleaded by the applicant in para 3 of her application, specific denial of claim of alleged demand en different time was not. made, but it was stated that all the allegations are fabricated, false, and unfounded, but the fact is. that the applicant herself does not want to stay with her husband and therefore, these allegations have been levelled.

( 6 ) IN reply to para 4, the instance of forcibly taking away the applicant from her fathers house was denied specifically. They have been levelled because the wife does not want to stay in matrimonial home.

( 7 ) IN reply to para 5, after making general assertion of denial, no specific denial was given about allegation that he has