S.D.Anand, J.

1. A petition filed by Krishan Kumar, for dissolution of his marriage with Mst. Kamla Devi, was allowed by the learned Trial Court which granted a decree of divorce. The FAO against that order was initially disposed of as infructuous by the Lok Adalat, vide order dated 23.2.2000 (Annexure P-4) on account of death of the husband. However, that order came to be reviewed by another Bench of the Lok Adalat which observed that the matter has to be disposed of by this Court on the judicial side.

2. The appellant-wife and her husband Krishan Kumar shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent respectively. The second wife would be referred to as Mst. Usha Devi. The marriage between the parties was otherwise performed on 5.2.1967. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on a pure and simple plea that the appellant stayed at the matrimonial house for a period of 4-5 days and, thereafter, left the matrimonial house for her parental house. She did not turn up thereafter. The appellant was otherwise doing job and was posted at a place different from the place of posting of the appellant. The appellant did not make any attempt to get herself transferred to the place of posting of the respondent who could not shift over to her place of posting as he had aged parents to look after. Even when the respondent got a promotion and got himself transferred to Moga (which was the nearest to Fazilka i.e. place of posting of the appellant), she did not join the matrimonial company.

3. The appellant contested the allegations levelled by the respondent and averred that she was turned out of the matrimonial house as the respondent and members of her in-laws family were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by her and she was unable to meet their dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash and a scooter. For that purpose, she was belaboured a number of times by the respondent who was a big boozer and who even made an abortive attempt to do away with her. After her unceremonious ouster from the matrimonial house, she could return to the matrimonial house only with the intervention of the panchayat. The parties co-habited thereafter and the marriage was consummated. The parties cohabited as husband and wife till about a year before the filing of the petition. Thereafter, she was again ousted from the matrimonial house.

4. The trial proceeded on the following issues :-

"1. Whether the respondent had, after the solemnisation of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately proceeding the presentation of this petition ? OPP

3. Relief."

5. The learned Trial Judge recorded finding in favour of the respondent and against the appellant under both the issues. The precise finding recorded thereunder was that the appellant stayed over at the matrimonial house for a period of only 4-5 days and left it thereafter and never resumed co-habitation with the respondent at the matrimonial house.

6. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued at the very outset that the petition filed by the respondent deserves outright rejection on account of delay in the filing thereof. In that context, reliance was placed upon the averment made by the respondent that the appellant stayed over at the matrimonial house for a period of 4-5 days, left it thereafter and did not return to the matrimonial house till date.

7. The plea was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent who argued that the appellant is estopped by her own averment in the pleadings that the parties co-habited as husband and wife till one year prior to filing of the petition.

8. The plea on behalf of the appellant does not deserve acceptance. A party is bound by its own admission in the pleadings. It was own plea of the appellant therein