Condonation of cruelty by a spouse bars a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Devinder Gnpta, J.—The present appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is against the judgment and decree passed on August 17, 1988, by District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Nahan, Camp at Solan, allowing the husbands petition filed under section 13 of the Act and granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties.

2. On December 20, 1986, a petition under section 13 of the Act was filed by the husband against the wife for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion The allegation of the husband was that his marriage with the respondent was solemnised I./13 years ago. Where after, they continued to live happily in village Gohar After few years, behaviour of the wife became abnormal. She started picking-up quarrels on one pretext or the other and also showing disrespect to the family members. On one occasion, she even went to the extent of levelling false allegation that her father-in-law intended to have illicit relations with her. She also started levelling false allegations of alleged misbehaviour towards her by the husband and other family members and that of not providing necessary amenities and getting hard work from her as also neglecting her. According to the petitioner-husband, these acts on the part of wife, amounted to cruelty The other ground, which was made the basis for seeking decree of divorce was desertion, for which it was alleged that the wife had deserted the husband for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Petitioner alleged that in the year 19/3, he fell ill and his condition started deteriorating day-by-day. The respondent-wife Instead of discharging her marital obligations of looking after him, left his house and she even did not pay a visit to him at Bilaspur hospital where he was under treatment She thereafter did not come back and declared that she bad no Intention of doing so The further allegation of the petitioner was that after the year 1979, the wife-respondent had deserted him. It may, however, be noticed at this stage that in his petition, petitioner bad categorically asserted that there had not been any previous proceedings between them under the provisions of the Act, except that the wife had preferred a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Gram Panchayat, Dhundan in which maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month wag awarded In favour of the wife. Petitioner also asserted that there was no undue delay in preferring the petition and that he had not condoned the acts of cruelty of the wife-respondent.

3. The petition was contested by the wife. She admitted having taken out proceedings under section 125, Cr P.O. claiming maintenance from the husband since he had failed and neglected to provide any maintenance to her. It was asserted by her that she had been treated with cruelty by the husband and allegations made by him in the petition level ling allegations of cruelty and that of desertion were false and baseless. According to her she had at no point of time refused to join the husbands company. It was due to the act and behaviour of the husband and the other members of the family that she was forced to leave her marital home and live with her parents. She in fact was turned out from the house since the husband-petitioner wanted to get rid of her as she could not bear a child. It was the conduct of husband-petitioner which forced her to move petition before the Gram Panchayat for grant of maintenance. A specific plea was raised by her that the husband had earlier filed a petition under section 9 of the Act seeking decree for restitution of conjugal rights. After having withdrawn the said petition, now the present petition had been moved which act on the part of the husband itself was sufficient to refuse him any relief She denied that the husband had not condoned the allege