N. N. GOSWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the husband is directed against a judgment and decree dated 17-7-1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called "the Act") for divorce on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant filed a petition under S. 13 (l) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. It was alleged that the parties were married at Ghaziabad according to Hindu rites and custom on 25-1-1981. They resided together after the marriage at Shahdara and a daughter was born from the wedlock on January 21,1982. Soon after the marriage the appellant found that the respondent was very arrogant and unadjustable in nature. The acts of cruelty, as alleged in the petition, are : (1) that the respondent was visiting her parents quite often without the consent of the appellant and wanted the appellant to settle at Ghaziabad where her parents resided: (2) the respondent was not respectful to him and was overpowering and would not cook food for him and would make him cook instead, even in the presence of the friends of the appellant, the respondent refused to prepare tea and instead the appellant had to do it himself and the respondent misbehaved as well and threw away tea kettle; (3) The respondent did not care for the illness of the appellant after she left the house of the appellant on 22-11-1982 in spite of a letter having been written to the respondent intimating about the ill-health of the appellant; and (4) Even the parents of the respondent threatened the appellant to act according to their daughter s wishes otherwise they would make the appellant to face dire consequence. It is further alleged that on 21-11-1982 there was some exchange of hot words between the parties and the respondent finally left the matrimonial home on 22-11-1982 along with her daughter and the jewellery and since then she has not returned to the matrimonial home in spite of letters having been written by the appellant. ( 3 ) THE petition was contested by the respondent-wife. In the written statement, she denied all the allegations of cruelty alleged against her. She pleaded that the real cause of disharmony between the parties was the greed of the appellant for extra dowry. ( 3 ) THE petition was contested by the respondent-wife. In the written statement, she denied all the allegations of cruelty alleged against her. She pleaded that the real cause of disharmony between the parties was the greed of the appellant for extra dowry. According to her, the appellant had made her life miserable and she had no option but to write to her father for some extra dowry. Her father in order to save the marriage sent a bank draft of Rs. 7000. 00 to the appellant in July 1981 i. e. barely six months after the marriage. However, this amount also did not satisfy the appellant and he wanted more and more money which her parents could illafford. It is further pleaded in the written statement that she kept on staying with the appellant in order to save her marriage till 16-2-1983, on which date she was removed by the appellant to Marry Stops Centre, Nursing Home, Shahdara for abortion. After she was discharged from the said Nursing Home, the appellant took her to her parents house forrest and promised to take her back after she had fully recovered. However, the appellant never came back to take her to the matrimonial home. It is further pleaded that she was given beating on various dates mentioned by her in the written statement as she failed to bring the extra dowry from her parents. She pleaded that she was still willing to live with the appellant as a good wife provided the Court could safeguard her interest, and the appellant could give an undertaking that he will behave in a manner becoming to an educated and civilized human being. ( 4 ) IN replication, the appellant denied the allegations levelled in the written statement, but admitted that he had received the bank draft of Rs. 7000. 00 but stated that this amount was returned by the father of the respondent to appellant which was paid by the appellant to him for the purchase of a plot. He also admitted that the respondent did come to the matrimonial home to celebrate the birthday of their child and also on the date when she was admitted to the Nursing Home. However according to him, she came only for few hours on each occasion and left thereafter. He also admitted that the respondent did come to the matrimonial home to celebrate the birthday of their child and also on the date when she was admitted to the Nursing Home. However according to him, she came only for few hours on each occasion and left thereafter. He admitted that he got the respondent admitted in the Nursing Home but that was on the insistence of the respondent as she had threatened to commit suicide if he had not got her admitted in the Nursing Home for abortion. ( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial, Judge framed the following issues : (1) Whether after the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty? (2) Relief. ( 6 ) IN order to prove the issue, the appellant examined himself as Public Witness1, his friend A. K. Gautam as AW2, his brother Ram Parkash as Public Witness3 and Mahabir Prasad Jain, the landlord as Public Witness4. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of the evidence of these witnesses, has come to the conclusion that besides being contradictions on material points, these witnesses are interested parties and are not worth believing. I have been taken through the evidence of these witnesses and I entirely agree with the learned trial Judge that the evidence is not even worth the paper on which it has been written. In view of the documentary evidence on record, it is not necessary even to deal with this useless and worthless evidence. ( 7 ) IN documentary evidence on record consists of letters Ex. Public Witness3/rl, Ex. Public Witness3/r2 Ex. Public Witness3/r3 and Ex. Public Witness3/r4 written by the brother of the appellant prior to the marriage of the parties and the letter dated January 10, 1983 Ex. Public Witness1/r1 written by the appellant. All these letters are addressed to the father of the respondent. In first four letters written by the brother of the appellant, it is amply clear that prior to the marriage, various demands were being made for the dowry by the brother of the appellant. He has been suggesting that on various ceremonies the respondent s father will have to pay a particular amount. He has shown his dissatisfaction on some of the ceremonies and has invited the respondent s father to come and settle the issues. He has been suggesting that on various ceremonies the respondent s father will have to pay a particular amount. He has shown his dissatisfaction on some of the ceremonies and has invited the respondent s father to come and settle the issues. It is specifically mentioned in the letters that the said Ram Parkash, brother of the appellant, had performed the marriage of his sister and had given particular items and gold ornaments on certain ceremonies and he wanted the respondent s father to do the same. Finally in the last letter, he has given taunt to the respondent s father and has stated that in the circumstances only he and the appellant would come and have a simple marriage ceremony. All these letters indicate that right from the beginning, the appellant and his family had a greed for dowry. Further it stands admitted that even after the marriage, the father of the respondent had sent a sum of Rs. 7000. 00 by a bank draft to the appellant which obviously means a further payment of dowry. The explanation of the appellant that this amount was a refund of the amount paid by the appellant is obviously a falsehood and no proof to that effect has been furnished. ( 8 ) AS regards the allegations that the respondent left the matrimonial home finally on 22-11-1982, from the record it iclear that the allegation is entirely false. The appellant had to admit that she was present on the occasion of the birthday celebration on 21-1-1983 at his house. He had also to admit that she was present in his house even on 16-2-1983 when she was got admitted in the Nursing Home. He, however, stated that on these occasions, she came only for few hours and left on the same day on both the occasions. This is again falsehood by his own letter dated January 10, 1983, Ex. Public Witnessi/rl. This is a post card which is written by him to his father-in-law. He has specifically stated that he and the respondent are running in the usual routine and are P. K. On the back of the post card, a short note is also recorded by the respondent. This post card was written to the father of the respondent inviting the family to attend the birthday of the child on 21-1-1983 at about 3. This post card was written to the father of the respondent inviting the family to attend the birthday of the child on 21-1-1983 at about 3. 00 p. m. It obviously shows that the respondent was in the matrimonial home on 10-1-1983. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel, for the appellant, stated that even on that occasion she had come only for the day. All these allegations have merely to be rejected. ( 9 ) FROM the entire evidence on record, the only possible conclusion is that the appellant and his family members had agreed for dowry and this greed persisted even two years after the marriage and the respondent was being shabily treated by them and various demands were being made for extra dowry. When their demands could not be satisfied, a resort has been taken to this petition in order to get rid of the respondent and seek dowry elsewhere. The appellant is clearly taking advantage of his own wrongs and is not entitled to any relief. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY for the reasons recorded above, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. 00.