ORDER :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Present First Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1984) has been filed challenging judgment dated 13.08.2015 and decree dated 22.08.2015 passed by Principal Judge (Family Court), Gautam Buddh Nagar in Original Suit No. 69 of 2011 (Sanket Misra Vs. Smt. Urvashi) whereby court-below has dismissed aforesaid suit for divorce filed by Plaintiff Sanket Misra on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. We have heard Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for plaintiff-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) and Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for defendant-respondent (herein after referred to as Respondent)

3. It transpires from record that marriage of Appellant Sanket Misra was solemnised with Respondent-Smt. Urvashi on 22.11.2004. However, the couple did not have a smooth family life but ended up in marital discord on account of strained relations.

4. As a natural corollary of above, after six years of marriage, Appellant Sanket Misra filed O.S. no. 69 of 2011 (Sanket Misra Vs. Smt. Urvashi) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1984) for a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

5. According to plaint allegations, it was alleged by Appellant-Sanket Misra that marriage of Appellant was solemnized with Urvashi on 22.11.2004 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Marriage of parties was performed without any demand of dowry, but considering social status, jewelry and expensive clothes were given to bride-groom i.e. respondent at the time of marriage and they are in possession of respondent. It was also alleged that at the time of marriage parties were Hindus and continue to repose their faith in Hindu Religion. No children are alleged to be born, from wedlock of parties. After marriage, couple went for their Honeymoon to Goa. According to Appellant conduct of respondent at Goa was not very genial and out of anguish, she is alleged to have thrown her Mangal Sutra into the sea as she did not like the same. Diamond ring, which was given to respondent by Appellant at the time of marriage was also thrown away by her alleging that same is not acceptable and in place thereof a solitaire ring be given. After marriage, Appellant brought respondent to his home. Appellant duly performed his obligations as husband and gave all benefits and luxury to respondent. However, irrespective of aforesaid, respondent failed to discharge her spousal obligations. Appellant further alleged that respondent is a literate and fashionable lady whereas Appellant is a simple person. Though Appellant has provided every comfort to respondent but her conduct towards Appellant has always been derogatory. She enters into verbal altercation on trivial issues. She has further expressed her unwillingness to reside with parents of Appellant. In spite of various efforts on behalf of Appellant requesting respondent to give up her such conduct, she has remained adamant. Appellant has continued to bear all such conduct of respondent only to save marital relation so that no discord may arise.

6. Conduct of respondent has been wholly derogatory and unbecoming of a daughter-in-law. Whenever Appellant went out, respondent would also leave her marital home and return late in the evening. On enquiry regarding her whereabouts respondent behaved with indecency and further indulged in verbal altercation. She is alleged to have even threatened Appellant of implicating him in false cases. However, Appellant continued to withstand such irresponsive conduct of respondent. It was also alleged by Appellant that respondent has failed to do household work. She does not treat any relative of Appellant with courtesy and respect. Conduct of respondent is humiliating. Appellant further alleged that respondent herself has stated that she does not want to stay at her marital home and therefore, she does not wish to remain in company of Appellant. Appellant c