( 1. ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against judgment and decree dismissing his suit for divorce.

( 2. ) THE plaintiff/husband filed the suit on 1-3-1984 for divorce under Section 13, in the alternative for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1959. By amendment dated 17-8-1984, the plaintiff restricted the petition for divorce only. The plaintiff is a matriculate and a bullion merchant of Narsinghpur. The defendant is a post-graduate resides with her widow mother Smt. Bimla at Kareli. The marriage between the parties took place on 28-4-1983. She came to marital home and lived with him at Narsinghpur for about 3-4 days. Thereafter she returned to her mothers house. Three or four days thereafter, the defendant came to the plaintiffs house in second Bida. This time she remained in the plaintiffs house for 8-10 days. On account of her insistence to return, the defendant was sent to her mothers place. She remained there for a fortnight. After living with the plaintiff for some time she finally returned to her mothers house on 26-7-1983. Thus the total stay of the defendant soon after marriage was for 3 days, in second Bida for 8-10 days and, in the third time for about one month and twenty six days, the total stay of the defendant with the plaintiff comes to about seventy days. The instances of cruelty alleged are :-

(a) During her first stay, she gave vent to her higher educational qualification as compared to that of the plaintiff who is only a matriculate. A suite of five big rooms was provided for her decent living, but she often remarked that the gap in education of the two, cannot be filled up by large accommodation and that in the plaintiffs family no one is educated as she is. When she was told that such remarks hurt his feelings, she used to reply--"fact is fact"; (b) During her second visit the defendant started misbehaving with the plaintiff and his family members. Whenever she was asked to do some personal work fetching a glass full of drinking water or milk she used to remark that she is not his servant. She did not undertake any house hold work. She called the plaintiffs mother by filthy name and on his protest, she expressed repentance for having married the ill-educated person. She also used to call his house a hell. She would commit suicide and implicate every members of his family; (c) One Rakash alias Pappu who had been residing in her fathers house, she told the plaintiff that said Pappu is a Tantrik and he does not stand any match with him. She could sacrifice for Pappu including his desertion. Emboldens by the Tantrik powers, she used to tell the plaintiff that she could take the liberty to abuse them and behave in any manner she like and in the event of resistence she would destroy the entire family with Tantra Vidya. The plaintiff further alleged that she was found keeping some "dulhadev" and "brammadev" in the coconut as also copper-plates with some Mantras inscribed on them which, she disclosed, were given to her by Pappu. When all these were detected she raised hue and cry to the pitch of her voice to the hearing of the neighbours which cause annoyance to the plaintiff and his family members. She summoned her mother through a letter. Her mother came along with Pappu on 26-7-1982 and after abusing the plaintiff and his mother filthly took the defendant away to their house on the same day despite protest and request by the plaintiff to allow her to live with him; (d) After the defendant came second time, the defendant denied sexual intercourse to the plaintiff by occupying the secluded room; (e) The plaintiff sent message to the defendant and her mother to resume marital home, but she did not come. The plaintiff, therefore, concluded that the chances of returning back to her and to lead like a faithful Hindu wife had disappeared;

( 3. ) THE plaintiff pleaded that on account of the aforesaid cruelty inflicted on him the plaintiff suffered extreme mental distress and hardship.