N. N. Goswamy ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the husband is directed againstthe judgment dated 4/11/1981 passed by the learned Additional Districtjudge, Delhi whereby his pstition under Section i3 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marrige by adecree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It isalleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnisedin June 1962 at village Nagta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra accordingto Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marrige the parties lived togetherin District Kangra and thereafter shifted to Delhi. A male child was bornout of the wedlock in the year 1967 in District Kangra. The said child wasdeformed and of unsound mind who later expired in the year 1972 at Newdelhi. It is further alleged that since the inception of marriage between theparties, the respondent was of quarrelsome nature and continued to quarrelwith the appellant. Even on the first night when the materimonial obligationwas supposed to be performed, the appellant could not perform the act ofcohabitation although the respondent was 17 years of age at that time. This act of the respondent created mental agony to the appellant. The respondentalso warned the appellant not to have sexual relation with the respondentfor at least one year following the day of marriage. The appellant, for thefirst time, cohabited with the respondent at Delhi in 1965 after a long periodof their marital life. The respondent lived with the appellant for six monthsand conceived during that period. The child was born in November 1967and the respondent remained at her parents house for about one year. During that periond also the attitude and behaviour of the respondenttowards the appellant, his parents, brothers and sisters was cruel. Theappellant, however, tolerated the misbehaviour of the respondent in order tosafeguard the status and reputation of the family. After the birth of thechild, the respondent competely neglected the appellant and brought an end to the materimonial relations and obligations with the appellant. Thoughthe respondent lived with the appellant for about a year at Delhi after thedeath of the child her treatment towards the appellant was insulting and taunting. Thereafter the parties lived together at Delhi from November 197 8/05/1930. During this period, the behaviour of the respondentwas very cruel and inhuman towards the appellant. Thoughthe respondent lived with the appellant for about a year at Delhi after thedeath of the child her treatment towards the appellant was insulting and taunting. Thereafter the parties lived together at Delhi from November 197 8/05/1930. During this period, the behaviour of the respondentwas very cruel and inhuman towards the appellant. She had developed thehabit of abusing and cursing the appellant. Not only this, the respondentused to make remarks against the character of the appellant. The respondentdeclared that the appellant had illicit relations with his elder sister in spiteof the fact that the appellant respected and regarded his elder sister as hismother. The respondent also went to the extent of charging the appellanthaving illicit relations with the wife of the appellant s younger brother. Itis further alleged that whenever the appellant took out the respondent forshopping etc. she used to insult him and misbehaved in the presence of otherpersons. It is alleged that the misbehaviour of the respondent had reachedsuch a stage when it had become impossible for the appellant to live withher due to tension created in his mind. ( 3 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondent-wife. She wasduly served but did not put in appearance. However, from the record, Ifind that she had addressed a memorandum to the Court wherein she haddenied the allegations contained in the petition and had levelledcounter charges against the appellant. The said memorandum couldnot be taken into consideration and as such the respondent was proceededex parte. ( 4 ) IN support of his case. the appellant examined hfmself as Public Witness 1. He divided the acts of cruelty in two parts. The first part is from the dateof marriage till about 1967 when they initially lived together. The secondpart is between the period 1978 to 1980. While describing the crueltiesfrom the first period, the appellant has deposed to all those acts of crueltywhich he has alleged in the petition. During the period 1978 to 1980 hedeposed that the respondent used to abuse and quarrel with other membersof the family. He also stated that the respodent used to refuse to accompanythe appellant to social gatherings and whenever she accompanied she usedto insult him there. He also stated that whenever the respondent was takento the market she insulted the appellant at the shop and shouted there. As aresult thereof, the appellant suffered mental shock and torture. He also stated that the respodent used to refuse to accompanythe appellant to social gatherings and whenever she accompanied she usedto insult him there. He also stated that whenever the respondent was takento the market she insulted the appellant at the shop and shouted there. As aresult thereof, the appellant suffered mental shock and torture. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge, in my opinion, was right in holding thatthe earlier acts of cruelty i. e. before 1978 even if proved; stood condonedinasmuch as admittedly the partics lived together and cohabited from 1978 to1980 i. e. for a period of about two years. The acts of cruelty during theearlier period would be revived if it is proved that she committed anyfurther acts of cruelty during the period 1978 to 1980. According to theevidence, the only acts of cruelty, are (a) she insulted and quarreled withother members of the family (b) she insulted the appellant whenever he tookher to social gatherings or to the market. Unfortunately for the appellant,these are mere allegations and it would not have been difficult for him toprove the said allegations by producing independent evidence of othermembers of the family or of the shopkeepers or persons with whom theyattended social gatherings. The mere evidence of the appellant without therebeing specific dates and time, cannot be taken to be true even at its facevalue. The Rules framed under the Act as also form prescribed, make itmandatory for the petitioner to state the acts of cruelty in separate paragraphwith dates and time. The requirement has admittedly not been fulfilled inthe present case so much so that not even a single date or time is stated inthe petition or in the evidence. In the absence of the same, the mere generalallegations in the petition and in the statement of the appellant cannot betaken to have been proved. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore,in my poinion, was right in coming to the conclusion that the allegationshave not been proved. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in thisappeal which is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order asto costi.