Specific instances of cruelty are required to prove the ground of cruelty under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and efforts for reconciliation or restitution of conjugal rights are necessary to establish desertion.

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J. - The present appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide which the petition filed under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'the HMA'), for dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed.

2. In brief, Jag Mohan, the appellant, had entered into the matrimonial tie up with respondent-Neelam on 27.11.2005 at Palwal, as per Hindu rites. After marriage, parties resided together. Out of this wedlock, a son, namely, Lukkey was born, who is presently residing with his mother. The appellant-husband brought the afore-stated petition under Section 13(i)(a) of the HMA, alleging that after the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent-wife and her family members was very cruel towards him. The respondent-wife used to quarrel and insult the appellant-husband. On 15.12.2006, father of the respondent-wife visited the house of the appellant-husband, in his absence and took away with him the respondent-wife and all her ornaments and Rs.80,000/- in cash and thereafter, respondent-wife never came back to her matrimonial home. The appellant-husband made his best efforts to bring the respondentwife back to her matrimonial home and to live with him but his all efforts went in vain.

3. Respondent-Wife in the written reply admitted the marriage but denied all other allegations of the appellant-husband and added that in spite of giving sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage, the appellant-husband and his parents were not satisfied with the same and gave beatings to her and demanded Rs.4,00,000/- or a car. It was also pleaded that on 15.12.2006, the appellant-husband and his parents turned the respondent-wife and his son out from her matrimonial home in wearing clothes.

4. From the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned Court below:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition?OPP.

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR.

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present petition?OPR.

4. Relief.

5. Appellant-Husband examined himself as PW1, Om Parkash as PW2, Roop Singh as PW3. On the other hand, respondent-wife examined herself as RW-1.

6. Learned trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence and pleadings of the parties, came to a conclusion that the appellant-husband was not able to produce any convincing evidence which proved that the marriage between the parties is liable to be dissolved on the allegations mentioned in the petition and therefore, vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014, dismissed the appellant's petition.

7. To assail correctness of the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014 and to seek its reversal, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband argued that the divorce petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent-wife. It is further argued that after the marriage, the respondent-wife treated the appellant-husband with cruelty and finally, she left the matrimonial home on 15.12.2006 and while doing so, she also took away all the jewellery. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband referred to the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW3 to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given to the appellant-husband and other members of his family but they were not satisfied with the said dowry. They started raising demand of more dowry and while doing so, they maltreated the respondent-wife. When the said demand of the appellant-husband and other members of his family was not fulfilled, they had thrown out the appellant-wife and her minor child out of their house. It is further contended that false allegations of cruelty and desertion ha