Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

On 05/06/2012 the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce alleging mental cruelty committed against him by the respondent.

2. He pleaded that the marriage between the couple was solemnized on 06/12/1989 as per Hindu custom at Jaipur. Two children, a son named Yash, aged 20 years and a daughter named Priya, aged 14 years when the petition was filed were born to the couple.

3. He pleaded that he was carrying on the business in Stones in Jaipur and his work required him to visit London. His wife used to accompany him during business tours. He was maintaining a residence at Jaipur and also at London.

4. Setting the scene for the cause of action he pleaded that for the last five years the attitude of his wife had turned hostile. She started quarreling with him, on trivial issues. Since last five years his wife started checking his e-mails as also the mobile phone with a suspicion concerning which females he was meeting. That for the last five years his wife was pressurizing him not to keep any female staff in the office. That he should not do business with a person who has employed female staff. Whenever he would go to India and return to London she would insist to be with him. That due to aforesaid suspicious attitude of the respondent she would keep him under constant eyes, which caused mental trauma to him and thus constituted mental cruelty.

5. Expanding upon aforesaid pleadings, appellant further pleaded that when he was in office his wife would constantly ring him at regular intervals to enquire where he was. She would quizzing in whose company he was sitting. She would make enquiry from the office staff whether any female employee was employed. She would ask whether the business associate of the appellant had visited appellant's office with a female. Her attitude was of a kind which suggested that she desired to be in the physical presence of the appellant where ever he went and this was not due to love but on account of the suspicious nature which the respondent developed since the last five years. He pleaded that during this last five years, the respondent pressurized him to break family relations with his parents, brother and sister. That w.e.f. 20/02/2011 the respondent has started residing separately.

6. In the written statement filed the respondent admitted the factum of marriage, birth of the children, business in Stones carried on by the appellant, the appellant maintaining residence in London and in Jaipur. She denied the allegations that she ever quarreled with the appellant. She denied that she was of a suspicious nature. She denied that she ever suspected the appellant concerning his interaction with females. She denied having checked the appellant's mobile phone or computer to access communication made by him with other people. She pleaded that the allegations in the petition seeking divorce are belied from the fact that during course of his business the appellant had been interacting with female and had employed female employees. She named one Nancy, Jill, Einav Raam, Denise, Danielle, Padmini and Rashmi as the ones whose names she knew being either employed by her husband or dealing with in connection with his business. She pleaded that she never raised any objection. She denied that she ever pressurized her husband to break social contact with his parents, brother and sister. Refuting the averments made in paragraph 16 of the petition seeking divorce filed by the appellant in which he pleaded that he had not filed any petition earlier in any court seeking annulment of the marriage, she pleaded that alleging acts of physical violence, verbal abuses etc. she had filed a petition seeking divorce in the court of Family Division of High Court of Justice, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Country Court but she was not actively pursuing the same.

7. The appellant did not file a replication to the written statement filed by the res