Vinod K. Sharma, J.:-The husband-appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.3.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, on a petition filed under Section 13 (1)(i), of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. The facts pleaded in the divorce petition were, that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 26/27.7.1996 at Chandigarh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Both the parties were divorcee. After the marriage, the parties lived together for 2/3 days. However, after 5/6 days of marriage, respondent No. 1 started quarreling with every member of the family and, therefore, they were separated on 2.10.1996.

3. It was pleaded case of the appellant that on 28/29.1.1999, respondent No. 1 left for certain place, but she did not reach the disclosed place and often absented from the house on similar pretexts. The appellant and his family members subsequently came to know that respondent No. 1 was spending her nights with respondent No. 2. It was also the pleaded case, that respondent No. 1 left for satsang on 10.3.1997, and thereafter she never came back and, in fact, went away with mother of respondent No. 2. She was also said to have left the house on 16.2.1997 and during this period she remained out of the house. It was the pleaded case of the appellant-husband that Station House Officer had summoned the appellant and family members, and on being satisfied advised the father and brothers of the appellant to separate the appellant and respondent No. 1, and writing to this effect was also executed. It was the case of the appellant that even after separation his life was made hell.

4. The main ground on which the divorce was sought was the adultery, on the plea that the appellant had never lived with respondent No. 1 after 8.3.1997. It was also the case, that earlier respondent No. 2 used to reside at H. No. 238, Vijay Niwas, Dayal Bagh, Ambala Cantt., and now the respondents were living together in H. No. 6, Sham Nagar, Ambala Cantt., which is the house of one Raunki Ram. The household articles belonging to the appellant were also taken away by respondent No. 1. Application in this regard was made to the police by the appellant and respondent No. 1 agreed to return the clothes etc., but nothing was done.

5. The petition was contested, wherein the factum of marriage was admitted. Other averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded, that the appellant was earlier married twice, but he had turned out both the earlier wives. The allegation of demand of dowry was also levelled. It was also pleaded, that the plot to kill her was also made by the appellant by poisoning her but it did not materialise. The stand taken was, that she was turned out of the matrimonial house on 15.2.1997 and she took refuge in the Nirankari Bhawan for two days. It was further pleaded that complaint was made to the police on 20.2.1997 and thereafter the appellant and respondent No.1 started living together, separately from rest of the family. It was pleaded that the appellant again left the company of respondent No. 1 in the end of March, 1997 and after great efforts the appellant again started living with respondent No. 1 from April, 1997, but he again left respondent No. 1 on 13.5.1997. Respondent No. 1 delivered male child on 25.1.1998, and intimation regarding this was given to the appellant and his family members, but nobody came to see the child. The relationship with respondent No. 2 was denied. The allegations of adultery were also denied.

6. In the replication, the averments made in the petition were reiterated and that of written statement were denied.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Matrimonial Court framed the following issues: -

1. Whether respondent No. 1 has treated the petitioner with cruelty. If so, to what effect? OPP

2. Whether respondent No. 1 after the solemnisation of marriage had voluntarily sexual intercourse with any person other than her spouse