Kuldip Chand Sood.—This first appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, dated 17th January, 1997.

2. Hemavati appellant, hereinafter referred to as "wife", was married to Puran Chand respondent, hereinafter referred to as "husband", in the year 1982 at Mandi according to Hindu rites. Two children were born out of the wed lock.

3. On October 11, 1995 wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 ("the Act" for short), for a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty.

4. It was the case of the wife that her father died some where in the year 1989 leaving behind her and her mother. Father of the wife was running a shop at Manali. After the death of her father, there was none to look after the widowed mother and shop which was run by her father. Faced with the circumstances, the wife and husband shifted to the parental house of the wife and started living at that place. Wife started running her fathers business in the shop at Manali. The husband started transport business with the financial help of the wife and her mother.

5. The instances of cruelty, as disclosed in the petition are: (a) husband started pressurising the wife and her mother to transfer/ gift the property inherited by them to the husband. The wife and widowed mother refused to do so. For this reason the husband became indifferent and started maltreating the wife; (b) the husband demanded margin money from the wife and her mother for the purchase of two trucks. This money was arranged by the wife and her mother, as they feared that in case such finance was not arranged the husband would harass them; (c) the husband levelled false and defamatory allegations of unchastity and adultery against the wife. Husband made explicit allegation that the wife was having illicit relations with Khushal Chand, driver of the truck. This allegation was communicated by the husband to her wholesale dealers and others.

6. The husband resisted the petition, the allegations were controverted. The case of the husband was: He and his wife shifted to parental house of the wife during the life time of her father as the old couple was unable to maintain themselves and the business in the shop. Both husband and wife started running grocery shop of the father of the wife at Manali. Husband also invested his earnings in the shop and raised funds to promote the shop and his transport business. Husband denied the allegation that he ever asked wife or her mother to transfer their property in the name of husband. It was the case of the husband that he purchased two trucks from his own source and income from the grocery shop was always deposited in the banks in the name of the wife. The husband, however, repeated the allegation, in the written statement, that wife was living in adultery having illicit relations with Khushal Chand one of the drivers on the trucks of the husband. According to the husband, the wife used to elope with Khushal Chand for weeks together. The husband asked wife to stop illicit relations, as it adversely effected the reputation of the family, but without any response. It is the case of the husband that wife was so much obsessed with her illicit relations with Khushal Chand that she would openly claim that she could not live without Khushal Chand. The wife asked the husband to leave her society and demanded divorce. The husband refused to comply. It is for this reason, pleaded husband, that the petition for divorce was filed by the wife.

7. In the rejoinder, filed by the wife, the allegations made by the husband were controverted and the allegations made in the petition were reiterated.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial court:

1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce, as alleged? OPP

3. Relief.

9. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on r