The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the grounds of divorce to be established as per the legal provisions, and the reconcilable and incongruous stand taken by the appellant in seeking divorce.

M. Jeyapaul, J.

The appeal is preferred by the petitioner Dr. Vikas Kumar Goyal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. The petitioner has alleged that he married the respondent on 1.11.2003. A son was born on 21.9.2004 out of the wedlock. It is alleged that during the last week of January 2004, when the respondent became pregnant, the petitioner as well as the respondent discussed about the continuance of pregnancy. The respondent had an excessive nausea problem. The respondent used abusive language to the petitioner and his family members, when some advice was given by the mother of the petitioner to take precautions at the initial stage of pregnancy. On 23.8.2004, the respondent left the matrimonial house without the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner's parents proposed celebration of Karva Chauth festival and the wedding anniversary of the couple which fell on 31.10.2004 and 1.11.2004 respectively. The mother of the respondent asserted that her family did not believe in any of those rituals, customs and functions. The respondent unauthorizedly and without any rhyme or reason extended her stay at her parental house w.e.f. 23.8.2004. She had no inclination to join the petitioner at the matrimonial house. The petitioner was interested to save the marriage at all costs. The father of the respondent put a pre-condition that the petitioner should come and stay at H.No.3715, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh and the respondent would not come to the matrimonial house under any circumstances. The respondent's father Dr. K.L. Garg used highly derogatory words over phone as against the petitioner's mother on 6.5.2006. The respondent is a career oriented lady and has no liking for matrimonial life. Alleging that the petitioner was subjected to mental cruelty and the respondent has deserted him without any intention to come back to the matrimonial home w.e.f. 23.8.2004, the petitioner sought for divorce.

3. The respondent alleged in the written statement that the petitioner demanded dowry. The petitioner is guilty of cruelty and matrimonial wrongs. The petitioner and his family members treated the respondent with cruelty. The petitioner and his family members did not want a child from the respondent and they asked her to get it aborted. The petitioner was very much annoyed and pressurised her not to continue with the pregnancy. The petitioner and his family members were not happy due to the pregnancy of the respondent. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.

4. The trial Court having adverted to the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the ground of desertion does not survive as the petitioner has pleaded in the divorce petition filed by him on 10.5.2006 that his wife deserted him only on 23.8.2004. The trial Court also held that it was only the petitioner who insisted for termination of pregnancy and created strained relationship. The trial Court ultimately held that neither cruelty nor desertion was established by the petitioner.

5. It is the admitted position that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 1.11.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Zirakpur (Chandigarh). It has been specifically alleged by the appellant in the divorce petition filed on 10.5.2006 that the respondent left the matrimonial house on 23.8.2004. In other words, desertion for a period of less than 2 years has been pleaded in the petition by the appellant. As per Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, a ground of divorce on the plea of desertion can be sustained only if the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. In the face of the admitted pleadings, the respondent has allegedly deserted the appellant only for a period