The plaintiff cannot seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if he himself was at fault for the breakdown.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-1-1999 passed by Sri M. Q. Siddiqui, then learned Judge Family Court, Jhansi in Suit no. 34/98, Ram Babu Babeley v. Smt. Sandhya.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant-respondent in the court of Family Judge, Jhansi under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with these allegations that, the marriage of the parties had taken place according to the hindu Rites on 15-5-1981. The plaintiff Ram babu Babeley was working as a labourer mostly at Nagpur and Maharashtra under the contractors and so he asked the defendant to reside at Nagpur with him as he had already taken a room on rent at Nagpur, but she refused to do so, and after lapse of two months from the date of marriage she went to her parents, house at Village Dinara. She said to the plaintiff that he should not go outside Jhansi and then only she would reside with him and not otherwise. Thereafter the plaintiff started to work at Jhansi and he has been doing the work of labourer at jhansi for the last seven years. The defendant came to his house at Jhansi in May, 1990 and stayed for ten days only; then she went with her father to her parental home at village Dinara, Tahsil Karaira District shivpuri (M. P.) and also took those ornaments with her which were given by the plaintiff to her. Thereafter the plaintiff went to her house in July, 1990 to call her back but of no avail, and since then he has been regularly visiting the house of her parents after the lapse of 4-5 months each. Some times he went alone, sometimes with friends and relations, and sometimes he sent his father for vida, but the defendant always refused to come back, her father also refused to send her and he asked the plaintiff that he should come to his house at Dinara and look after his agricultural work as Ghar jamai. The plaintiff did not agree to this proposal. Then the defendant and her father became more angry. The defendant and her father wanted to grab the ornaments given to her by the plaintiff, and so she had not come to the plaintiffs house after 1990. The plaintiff several times sent notices to the defendant asking her to come to his house for restitution of conjugal rights, but the defendant in collusion with the postman sent a report that the addressee was not available at the house and that she had gone out of station for a long time. The defendant had deserted the plaintiff since May, 1990 without any lawful excuse, hence now the plaintiff wants divorce from the defendant, and so he filed the suit for divorce.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit. She admitted her marriage with the plaintiff but denied rest of the allegations. She pleaded that the plaintiffs allegation that he is working as labourer at Nagpur and Maharashtra is false. The source of the plaintiffs income is agriculture and rent and he is earning rs. 10,000/- per month. His allegation that defendant refused to go to Nagpur with the plaintiff is false. She is always ready to reside with the plaintiff wherever the plaintiff resides. She never forced the plaintiff to reside at Jhansi or at any other place. The defendant always resided with the plaintiff after marriage. She never refused to perform her marital obligations. She did not go to her fathers house taking ornaments with her. The true facts are that the plaintiff had been making demand of a Motor Cycle since the time of marriage; and when she objected to it, he started to commit cruelty upon her and he has been levelling false allegations against her. The plaintiffs allegation that he himself and his parents, relations and friends went to her fathers house for her vida, is totally false. She never asked the plaintiff to come to village Dinara and to reside there. On the other hand the position is that the plaintiff repeatedly forced her to leave his house and pressurized her to meet his demand of dowry. The