VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J.

1. Aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 8th October, 2007 the appellant has instituted the present appeal.

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that non-appellant-wife- Smt. Santosh Devi, instituted an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the "Act of 1955"), with a prayer for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant-husband that was solemnized on 3rd October, 1997. The non-appellant-wife in her application instituted on 31st August, 2005, pleaded that the appellant-husband and his family members subjected to cruelty for dowry. It is pleaded case of the non-appellant-wife that she was subjected to mental and physical torture. Further the appellant-husband was a drunkard. On account of serious matrimonial discord, she left the matrimonial home and resided with her parents since 8th July, 1998. Narrating the incident of 21st January, 1998, the non-appellant wife also alleged sexual harassment at the hands of the brother of her father-in-law.

3. From the materials available on record, it is also reflected that the appellant-husband has instituted an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, on 4th February, 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights stating that the non-appellant-wife raised issues out of minor differences of opinion. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court below consolidated both the proceedings on 8th January, 2007. On the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues on 8th January, 2007, which reads thus;

1. Whether non-appellant-Madan Lal and his family members subjected the applicant-wife to cruelty for deficiency in dowry and whether the non-applicant-husband caused mental cruelty and as a result of intoxication?

2. Whether the applicant-wife prevented the non-appellant husband of the conjugal rights for which the proceedings were pending before the Court for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. Whether the applicant was of questionable character for she gave birth to a child just after six months of marriage?

4. Whether the appellant-wife instituted proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, against the non-applicant-husband and his family members wherein they were acquitted? If yes, what its effect?

5. Relief ?

4. The trial Court in the backdrop of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by the applicant-wife and materials available on record decided issue No. 1, in favour of the applicant-wife. Issue No. 2 to 4 were decided against the appellant-husband for no evidence was adduced in support of the written statement and stand in the response to the application for divorce. No document was brought on record to substantiate the fact that the applicant-wife instituted any proceedings against the appellant-husband and/or his family members in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh. The Court below also recorded a finding to the effect that no evidence was adduced while assailing the character of the applicant-wife on the ground of birth of a child just after six months of marriage. Even the non-applicant-husband did not appear before the Court to depose as a witness in support of the stand and written statement/reply filed in response to the application.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal asserted that the appellant-husband was not aware of the legal proceedings and the various dates on which the proceedings were conducted before the Court below and therefore, could not adduce any evidence.

6. According to the learned counsel, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case the Court below ought to have accorded yet another opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence.

7. It is further asserted that no explanation was furnished by the applicant-wife for the birth of the child within six months of marriage especially when the burden to prov