The court established that the grounds for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act were made out based on the evidence of cruelty and desertion by the respondent.

( 1 ) THIS appeal preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 23-12-1991 by Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal; dismissing the petition under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short), praying for divorce.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the parties were married in the month of February, 1976 at, Indore. Both of them were minors at the; time of their marriage. It is also not in dispute that the elder sister of respondent was also married to the elder brother of petitioner on the same day, on which the parties were married. The 'gauna' ceremony took place in the year 1978; whereafter, the respondent/wife came to the house of petitioner/ husband for a short while and then went back to the house of her parents. She continued to reside with her parents at Indore till the year 1983. The parents of appellant/husband are permanently residing at Bhopal. It is also now not in dispute that the parties last resided together at Bhopal, till the year 1984, whereafter the respondent is living with her parents.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and 13 (1) (ib) of the Act, praying for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. He averred therein that the petitioner made several efforts up to the year 1983 to bring his wife the respondent to the matrimonial home at Bhopal, however the respondent was reluctant to come to the matrimonial home and the father of respondent desired that the petitioner/husband should reside at Indore in the house of respondent/wife as 'ghar Jamaee'. It was alleged that, when the pressure tactics of respondent and her father failed, the respondent started behaving in a harsh manner. It was alleged that she used to misbehave with the family members of petitioner and created nuisance and rowdy scenes. She would threaten that she would commit suicide in case the petitioner does not shift to Indore as desired by respondent, and if she was compelled to reside at Bhopal.

( 4 ) IT was further averred that ultimately the petitioner yielded to the persuasion and pressure tactics of respondent and shifted to Indore in June 1983 with her. A job in a private factory was procured by the father of respondent. However, as the petitioner;was not inclined to reside with his in-laws in their house, he started residing in his own house at Indore, despite pressure from respondent and her father to live with them. Annoyed on account of resistance as above on the part of the petitioner, the respondent and her father used to quarrel with him. They also desired that the earnings of petitioner should be handed over to the respondent's father. On account of constant nuisance and ill-treatment of respondent and her father, the petitioner went back to Bhopal in December, 1983. It was averred that the respondent after great persuasion ( (greed to accompany the petitioner and came to Bhopal. However, the respondent continued to compel and pressurise the petitioner to return to Indore. The petitioner refused to yield to the above pressure. Having failed in their efforts, the father of respondent took her away to Indore in February, 1984. It has also been averred by the petitioner that since then the respondent did not come back to the petitioner, despite several efforts made by him. The respondent filed an application under Section 125, C. P. C. for maintenance at Indore, which has been allowed. A Criminal Revision against the said order was pending.

( 5 ) THE petitioner further averred that the demand of respondent and her father that the petitioner should leave his parents and should live with the respondent's father was unacceptable to the petitioner. Since the petitioner refused to accede to the above demand, the respondent is living with her father for a long period and has thus deserted the petitioner for a period of more than two years. The petitioner/hu