The onus of proving allegations of cruelty in a petition for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act lies on the petitioner, who must prove the allegations with sufficient particularity as required by the Act. Additionally, evidence of immoral conduct and illicit relations may dis-entitle a petitioner from claiming divorce on the ground of cruelty.

JUDGMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J. - By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2011 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in HMA petition No. 12 of 2008, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.

2. Facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under: -

3. On 06.05.2008, appellant filed the above noted petition with the averments that the parties were Hindu and were married on 27.09.1984 at Village Panoh Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. Out of wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born.

3. As per appellant, the respondent from the very beginning of married life had the habit of creating scene on petty matters. The appellant tolerated, but behaviour of respondent become bad to worse. After birth of youngest child, respondent forced the appellant to live separately from his parents and on his refusal, she along-with her minor girl child aged about 11 months went to her parental house in the year 1990. The matter was got compromised with the intervention of family members of the appellant. Respondent never provided moral education to children, whereas appellant discharged all the responsibilities of being father.

4. In 2002, appellant took respondent to District Mandi at his place of posting, where she got job of Drawing Teacher in Government school. After getting the Government job, respondent become more adamant. Her behaviour became more cruel towards the appellant. She started insulting the appellant in front of his family members and even used abusive language. She never left any opportunity of insulting the appellant. He suffered mental agony and had to spend sleepless nights. He became laughing stock in the society.

5. Appellant and respondent though shared the same house in District Mandi but were separate in mess since 2005 and were not continuing marital relations with each other. Appellant was forced to take food outside as she would not cook food for him. Respondent willfully refused to perform marital obligations towards the appellant.

6. On 25.12.2007, at the time of death of the father of appellant, respondent created scene. She forced the appellant to get the land transferred in her name which appellant had purchased in the name of his mother. Respondent threatened the appellant of dire consequences in case he failed to transfer such land in her favour. She inflicted bite injury to the appellant on his wrist, which caused deep bleeding wound. Respondent caught hold of petitioner by collar and pushed him down.

7. Respondent contested and denied the allegations, raised in the petition by the appellant, by filing written reply. She raised the objection as to maintainability of petition and estoppel etc. It was submitted by the respondent that appellant was separated by his parents in 1997. He remained posted at Kaza from 2002 to 2007.

8. As per respondent, she was appointed as Drawing Teacher in District Mandi in September, 2002 and was posted at Surari under complex of Kotli School. Appellant also got himself transferred to District Mandi in July, 2003 and joined the company of respondent.

9. Respondent specifically contended that the behaviour of appellant towards her changed drastically when he was transferred to Kaza. He started scolding the respondent on every petty matter. Appellant, in fact, wanted to marry another lady and, therefore, wanted to get rid of respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent was residing with appellant and both were maintaining marital relations as husband and wife. The parties had jointly constructed the house at village Jhiri in District Mandi and the respondent had also made substantial financial contribution besides providing guarantee for the house loan.

10. The respondent further stated that she had found some objectionable SMS in the mobile phone of appellant and when confronted, he got