Palo, J. -- 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Second Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Ganjbasoda district Vidisha in Case No.47-A/2006 (HMA), whereby the learned Second Additional District Judge has granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband/ respondent, the appellant/wife has filed this appeal under section 28 Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

2. It is not disputed that marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 22nd April 2004 at village Basoda by observing Hindu custom. This marriage was held in ‘Samuhik Vivah Sammelan’(A common marriage platform in which number of couples particular community solemnized their marriage.

3. Brief fact transpired before the learned trial Court is that immediately after the marriage on 22.4.2004 the respondent/husband suspected that the appellant/wife is pregnant. The respondent took her to a maternity home Bhopal for her checkup. Whereby it was informed that the appellant/wife is pregnant. Again on 1.6.2004 respondent/ husband got the appellant/ wife examined by a lady doctor in Uma Nursing Home at /village Basoda. Lady doctor informed that the wife/ appellant is ten weeks pregnant. It is alleged by the respondent that the appellant/wife and her parents suppressed this fact and got her marriage performed with respondent/ husband. Therefore, respondent tried to get customary divorce (Chod-Chutti). But could not succeed. The family members of respondent/husband despite assurance avoided any such proceeding. Therefore, the respondent/ husband could not file a petition earlier. Claiming that cause of action arose on 25.5.2004 when respondent/husband came to know about the pregnancy of the appellant/ wife and the failure to keep her the assurance by family members respondent has filed the petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for decree of divorce.

4. Per-contra, the appellant/wife denied all the allegations and submitted that the allegations are false and has been made because the demands of respondent/husband’s demand of motorcycle and cash as dowry could not fulfilled. The prescription was prepared by conniving with the Medical Officer. Appellant/ wife gave birth to a boy who is ten months old now. Respondent/husband never came to see him or his wife. Allegations made by the respondent/husband has caused defame to her and her family in the society. Appellant/ wife still wants to live with the husband if provided he treats her properly and without any violence.

5. On the basis of the averments learned trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to adduced evidence. Learned trial Court granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband finding that it is an irretrievable break down of marriage.

6. The respondent/wife assailed the judgment and decree on several grounds. In the appeal she pleaded that the judgment and decree is not sustainable in the eye of law. Allegation made by the respondent/ husband amounts to moral turpitude. There was no positive finding regarding the alleged ground taken by the respondent and ground in which the decree has been passed is not envisaged in section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Learned trial Court also failed to pass any order regarding alimony whereas the respondent is not maintaining the appellant/ wife and the minor son, which is the responsibility of the respondent. Therefore, it is urged to set-aside the impugned judgment and decree of divorce.

Learned trial Court has found that the document Ex.PA-1 does not contain the detailed address of the appellant/wife, only name and age is mentioned. Therefore, it could not be held that appellant/ wife was the person examined. It could be any other person named Rajkumari.

7. Learned trial Court also held that, if at all it is deemed that it is the appellant/wife who has been examined by the lady doctor Anita Agrawal even then, it can not be ascertained that the appellant/wife was pregnant for ten weeks on the