Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 11th May, 2007, whereby the District Judge, Dholpur ordered to dissolve the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband by way of decree of divorce.

2. The factual matrix of the case, as culled out from the pleadings and evidence, can be succinctly stated as under:

“The undisputed fact is that the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 24th November, 1997 at Basedi, District Dholpur. It is averred by the respondent-husband that right from the very beginning, the appellant-wife never treated him as her husband and did not allow to consummate the marriage till filing of the application. It is further averred in the petition that in 1998, the appellant-wife Mamta had written a letter to her parents, which indicated that she was never interested in the marriage. The appellant-wife unequivocally stated therein that neither she intended to marry him nor was she his wife. It is her parents who forcibly married her to her husband. As per the respondent-husband, the marriage was never consummated since 24.11.1997. This indifferent attitude of the appellant-wife amounts to cruelty. The husband implored the Court to grant the decree of divorce on this ground alone. Otherwise too, on the date of filing the application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, the parties had been living separately for the last seven years.

In reply to the afore-stated pleadings of the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife only admitted the fact of their marriage being solemnized on 24th November, 1997, but denied all the rest of averments. The appellant-wife stated that she remained with her husband in his house between 24th November, 1997 to 26th March, 1999 and the marriage was consummated between this period. Thereafter the husband deserted her. She further submitted that it was not the appellant-wife, but the respondent-husband, who was responsible for cruelty towards her. The conduct of husband was never fair and reasonable to the appellant-wife. The respondent-husband agreed before Women Commission, Jaipur to keep the appellant-wife and pursuant to the order of Women Commission, the wife went to her husband's house and started residing there, but she was turned out of the house on 26th March, 1999. Thus, the respondent-husband should not be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrong and the petition for divorce deserves to be dismissed.”

3. The learned trial court framed as many as three issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties, which are thus:

i) D;k foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks fookg ds i'pkr~ ls ySafxd lekxe ugha djus fn;k tkdj Øwjrk dh xbZ\

ii) D;k foi{kh izkFkhZ ls fnlEcj 1998 ls fcuk fdlh ;qfä;qä vk/kkj ds vyx jg jgh gS rFkk izkFkhZ dk ifjr;kx fd;k gqvk gS\

iii) vuqrks"k\

4. The respondent-husband Ram Gopal AW-1 put his own evidence on oath in support of his case, whereas the appellant-wife examined herself and produced two more witnesses NAW-2 Badri Singh and NAW-3 Ram Bharosi Lal to defend her case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

6. The appellant-wife has filed the instant appeal on the following grounds:

i) Once it is admitted by the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife was living with him from 24th April, 1997 to 26th March, 1999, for almost 1 ½ years, the presumption would be that both were living as wife and husband and sexual relations are presumed to have been established between them, unless, of-course, a strong rebuttal is adduced by the husband. Thus, the learned trial court erred in arriving at a finding that the marriage between the parties was never consummated.

ii) The learned trial court misinterpreted and misconstrued the letter Ex. A/2 written by wife to her parents. This letter has been read by the learned trial court in favour of the respondent-husband, whereas a bare reading of the letter reflects that the hus