J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

1. The appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/husband against the judgment dated 20.05.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which his petition for divorce/annulment of marriage on the ground of cruelty and there being a sapinda relationship between the parties has been dismissed.

2. The parties to the litigation got married on 04.05.1992 according Hindu rites & customs. There is no child from the said wedlock. The appellant asserted that Smt. Shivani Ditti: the grandmother of the respondent/wife is the sister of the father of the Appellant and thus, they fall within the prohibited degree of relationship, being the sapindas of each other and therefore, the marriage is liable to be declared as a nullity in terms of section 5 read with section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The appellant had further alleged various acts of cruelty namely:

(i) The behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant was not right from the beginning as she was disrespectful to him and his parents.

(ii) She threatened to implicate the appellant and his parents in false cases.

(iii) She insisted on living separately in her mother‟s house and threatened to sprinkle kerosene oil on her body and burn herself. The parents of the petitioner gave in to her insistence and she set up her residence separately along with the appellant.

(iv) The respondent failed to discharge her marital obligations, do any household work and to take care of the appellant.

(v) She denied him co-habitation at night.

(vi) She complained that the appellant was not of his choice as she wanted to marry a boy who was living near her parents‟ house at Baraut and consequently she used to mostly remain at her parental house.

4. The appellant further claimed that the respondent finally left the matrimonial home on 20.11.1994 along with her father and took away all her valuables and jewellery. She started living with her parents at Baraut, U.P. The appellant made efforts for reconciliation, but did not succeed. He sent a Notice dated 07.01.1995 through his advocate requesting the respondent to return, but to no avail. He even approached the CAW Cell on 14.03.1995 in the hope that the respondent would come back but no action was taken by the police. The appellant thus, sought a decree of nullity or in the alternative a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

5. The respondent in her Written Statement admitted the factum of marriage and claimed custom and usage prevalent among both the communities i.e. Aroras and Khatris of Jhang to which the parties belong to justify the validity of their marriage. She denied that the marriage between the parties was nullity.

6. The respondent denied all the allegations of inflicting cruelty upon the appellant and his family members. She denied that she ever made a demand for separate residence; instead she asserted that at the time of marriage a demand of car and Rs.5,00,000/- cash was made and when the demand was not met, the same became a cause of dispute between the parties. She claimed that the appellant never took her for outings and would go either to Vaishno Devi, Nainital or Haridwar only because his demands for dowry were not made and she was relegated to the status of a maid servant in the matrimonial home.

7. The respondent asserted that on 09.10.1994, Sh. Chunni Lal Babbar, Smt. Darshana and Ms. Asha- relatives of the appellant, schemed to kill her by leaving the cooking gas open and asked her to go to the kitchen and prepare tea for them. They wanted to get rid of the respondent as fire would have engulfed her as soon as she lit the match stick. She denied all the allegations of cruelty as were made against her.

8. The respondent also denied that she left the matrimonial home along with her father on 20.11.1994. She claimed that she came to Baraut U.P. in the month of August, 1994 on the occasion of Raakhi and went back along with the petitioner after one week i.e. on the da