PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The respondent instituted a petition on 05.11.2014 invoking Section 13(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He was aged 45 years when the petition was filed. The appellant was aged 52 years when the petition was filed.

2. Case pleaded by the respondent was that the maternal uncle of the appellant Shri R.S. Choradia was instrumental in the matchmaking and had assured that the appellant was an educated girl and came from a very good family background. The family of the respondent told him that they were interested in a good bride and desired no dowry. Talks fructified. On 17.06.1998 the marriage was solemnised.

3. That after the marriage the couple set up the matrimonial house in the house belonging to the respondent's father. But the attitude of the appellant baffled him because she never showed any inclination to have sex. Whenever the respondent initiated a discussion with the appellant regarding her behaviour she gave evasive answers. After 15 days of the marriage she informed the respondent that she was not interested in the marriage. At the asking of her maternal aunt, by way of an experiment, she had got married on the assurance by her maternal aunt that whenever she would desire a divorce could be obtained. The respondent further pleaded that for 2 to 3 months he kept quiet and did not share this with anybody. He took courage to inform the maternal uncle of the appellant who was instrumental in the match-making. As per the respondent probable reason for appellant's behaviour was that she was residing alone at Jaipur before marriage and was in service and thus she had got used to a life where she could not adjust with others. This belief was founded on the fact that the respondent saw during the marriage ceremonies that appellant's parents and brother were remaining in the background. That so aloof was the attitude of the appellant that not only she would not have sex with him but she would not even mingle with his parents or relatives whenever the relatives visited the house. She started misbehaving with his parents. She would never accompany him outside. She would tell him that she had no concern with anybody in the house.

It hardly mattered to her whether anybody was indifferent towards her. She stated that she had no desire to take help from anyone. That one day, by way of initiating a dialogue, when he asked the appellant would she accompany him to his village if his grandfather died, she replied that under no circumstances would she accompany him to the village.

4. Further case pleaded was that so indifferent was the attitude of the appellant that she would keep awake till 2.00 in the night which would disturb his sleep because the light used to be on. She would get up at 8.30 and leave for work. She would never enter the kitchen to cook. She never prepared tea for him. She would keep her salary with herself and contribute not a penny nor would spend a penny in the house. The respondent tried to counsel the appellant. Her response was that she would have no physical relations with him and under no circumstance would ever take the responsibility of a child. Returning from work at about 3.30 PM in the late afternoon she would remain in her room till 7.00 PM.

5. That after one year of the marriage without informing anybody and much less the respondent, the appellant purchased a flat at Bapu Nagar. In spite of being the only son of his parents he agreed to shift to said flat hoping that away from his parents the attitude of the appellant may change. But this did not happen. The appellant would prepare meal only once a day and because of this he had to take the second meal at his parents house. Whenever he would return to the flat the appellant would remain indifferent.

6. He took a decision in March, 2003 (the year being typed wrong in the petition and it should be 2000) to shift to Saudi Arabia and thus he shifted to Saudi Arabia. At the asking of the appellant he arranged a visa for he