Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated Jan. 31, 1983 of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dissolving the marriage of the parties.
(2.)Khillu Ram respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'the petitioner') was married to Smt. Lajo Bai petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as 'the respondent') according to Hindu rites at Patiala in 1947. He Filed an application under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, ] 955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce. This application was dismissed. Thereafter be resumed cohabitation with the respondent. They resided together for six months and thereafter the respondent deserted him again in 1978. Thereafter he filed the present petition under Sec. 13 on Dec. 2, 1982 for a decree of divorce on the allegations that the respondent had treated him with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage and she had deserted him since Aug., 1978. The respondent appeared in response to the notice from the Matrimonial Court and filed a written statement in which she controverted the material allegations made by the petitioner. She however, admitted that she had resumed cohabitation with the petitioner after reconciliation was brought about between the parties by the respectables. However, thereafter the petitioner did not treat her properly. She pleaded inter alia that gulf between the parties could not be bridged because the petitioner did not give up his old habit of continuing his relations with other ladies and that she was not willing to live in subordination of a mistress of her husband.
(3.)The petitioner filed a replication to the written statement in which her reiterated his stand in the divorce petition and controverted counter allegations made in the written statement. He denied that the petitioner had ever relations with any other lady. He asserted that the allegation was patently false and it amounted to cruelty. He also averred that the respondent was never required to live in subordination of any mistress as there existed none. He also pleaded that there was no possibility of the parties living together when such false charges have been levelled by the respondent and that it was a case of broken marriage and he prayed that the application may be decreed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after the solemnisation of marriage ?

2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period for more than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition ?

3. Whether the petition does not suffer from unnecessary or improper delay ?