Palo, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment pronounced on 1st November, 2006 by the District Judge, Bhind, in Civil Suit No.10/06 (Hindu Marriage Act) by which the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by the husband/appellant was rejected, the appellant has filed this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Before the learned trial Court it was not disputed that appellant married the respondent on 9.5.1983 according to Hindu rites. The parents and younger and elder brothers are also residing with the appellant. It is also not disputed that before filing of the petition, an effort was made by the relatives to keep the respondent separately in the parental house of the appellant and for some time 500/- rupees per month was being given to her as maintenance by the appellant. No child is born due to the wedlock of the appellant and respondent.

3. The appellant/husband filed the petition before the learned District Judge, Bhind, on the ground that after their marriage in the year 1983, they lived together for two years. The respondent often used to visit her maternal home. She started quarrelling with the appellant and was pressurizing him to live separately. The appellant did not succumb to her pressure. But she was bent upon and was not prepared to live with the appellant’s family. To avoid any untoward situation, the appellant made arrangements in his parental house so that the respondent can live separately in a portion. This arrangement was made as back as 18-19 years. Even then, she was not happy and she used to leave the house and visit her uncle (Mausa) Gyanchand Jain and to her maternal home.

4. After making arrangements for the respondent to live separately and giving all the articles received during the marriage she deprived the appellant of his marital life.

5. The appellant submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhind. In this regard, on the respondent appeared before the Superintendent of Police on 28.9.1998 and admitted that she has no complaints against her husband and she expressed her willingness to live with the appellant and lived in the matrimonial home. But again no change has been seen in the nature of the respondent. She was also pressurizing the appellant to get his share of his parental property and live with her in her parental house. Few members of his Samaj suggested the appellant to let her live as she wants to live. The appellant from 1st March, 1999, provided her 500/- rupees per month as maintenance. Till 16.12.2002, it was being paid. The respondent wife lodged a report against the appellant and his family members. A criminal case was registered. The respondent quarreled with “Renu” the wife of the younger brother of the appellant on 6.5.2002. She deprived the appellant his marital life since 1989 and is not willing to live with him, whereas the appellant has been willing to keep her as his wife. On 1st August, 2004, she refused to live with the appellant, therefore, the appellant has filed this petition for divorce.

6. Per contra, the respondent-wife, except the admitted facts denied all averments and has submitted that she lived in her matrimonial home performing her duties. Parents and brother-in-law, sister-in-law of the appellant harassed her demanding dowry. She started living separately in the front portion of the parental house of the appellant on the promise that separate toilet, bath room, kitchen would be constructed and separate connection of water and electricity would be given. But these facilities were not provided and she was feeling uneasiness in the small room. The family members of the appellant beaten her so many times for demand of dowry. After two years of paying maintenance, the appellant stopped paying the maintenance. When she left to village Porsa to attend the marriage of her sister, a false report was lodged by Renu (sister-in-law of the appellant)) to harass her. The appellant himself ha