1. - This D.B. Civil Misc. appeal is directed by the appellant-husband, challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.7.1998, passed by Judge, Family Court, Jaipur. Learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application of the appellant-husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) for divorce.

2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows:

The appellant-husband Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh was married to the non-applicant Dr. Sangeeta on May 5, 1992, at Udaipur, according to Hindu rites and rituals. On account of this wedlock, she gave birth to a son called Gopu on 24.6.1993. The case of the appellant-husband is that the non-applicant wife on several occasions threatened and attempted to commit suicide. She insisted on the appellant to live separately from his parents, though the appellant is the only son of his parents. Upon insistence of the wife, the appellant-husband started living separately but the non-applicant wife continued to misbehave with the appellant and his parents. She often used to leave the appellant-husband for Udaipur from time to time and details of her visit to Udaipur are given in the application. It is also stated that before the marriage, it was agreed between the parties that she will remain at Jaipur since the appellant-husband was the only male issue of his parents. Accordingly, the non-applicant wife joined service in Amar Jain Hospital at Jaipur on 12.5.1992 but soon after she left for Udaipur along with her father on 30.5.1992. She returned to Jaipur but again left for Udaipur on 27.7.1992 and stayed there upto 15.8.1992. She persisted time and again that the appellant-husband should settle at Udaipur. She had not taken any interest in the domestic work and also started quarrelling with the appellant and his parents. Her behaviour was abnormal at Jaipur. It is also stated that the non-applicant wife and her father misbehaved with the parents of the appellant by making baseless allegations regarding demand of dowry. It is also stated that on 22.9.1992, the non-applicant had a month's pregnancy but she wanted abortion, which was not acceptable to the appellant. Thereupon, she took out mercury after breaking B.P. instrument and swallowed mercury to commit suicide, but she was saved. Thereafter, she left for Udaipur on 24.6.1993 and came back to Jaipur on 5.3.1994 after much persuasion and stayed at Jaipur only upto 17.7.1994 and thereafter, she did not return to Jaipur from Udaipur. It is also stated that on 4.7.1994, she took four tablets of 'William' after showing the same to the appellant-husband and it caused great mental shock to the appellant. She again consumed four tablets of 'Brufain' of 400 mg. each at 9 p.m. She also brought a book named 'how to suicide' on 11.7.1994 and told appellant that she will commit suicide. Thereafter she left for Udaipur on 17.7.1994 and has not come back till day, though the appellant has tried his best of persuade her to come to Jaipur and live with him and thus she has committed a series of acts amounting to cruelty. Thus the appellant-husband prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty vide application dated 26.10.1995.

3. The non-applicant wife submitted her detailed reply on 29.1.1996, denying all the allegations of cruelty. It is pleaded that it is the applicant-husband, his parents and sister Kusum, who committed various acts of cruelty to her. As a matter of fact, the applicant wants to re-marry and they compelled her to leave her in-laws' house, therefore, she came to Udaipur and joined service as a Medical Officer at Udaipur and presently she is working as Medical Officer in Govt. Hospital at Khairada, district Udaipur and she is ready and willing to live with her husband at Khairada.

4. Following issues were framed on 7.10.1996:

1. Whether respondent-wife treated the appellant-husband with cruelly after solemnization of marriage?

2. Whether appellant is entitle