JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the wife against the judgment and decree of divorce passed against her by the trial Court. ( 2. ) THE suit for divoce was based on cruelty. Out of various instances of cruelty, the learned trial Court accepted the plea of cruelty as pleaded in para 4 of the plaint. On translation, the plea runs as under : "the respondent very often told the petitioner after separating from your parents you should raised with me at Satna or get yourself transferred to Satna else I shall commit suicide and get you all arrested after making a report and you all shall be arrested on my report. ( 3. ) THE appellant wife denied the allegations. Learned trial Court held these allegations to be proved and passed a decree for divorce as aforesaid Hence this appeal. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for both parties, I am of the opinion that the appeal must be allowed. The plea reproduced above lacks in material particulars and is, therefore, vague and should not have been put to trial. The plea does not disclose the date, time and place when alleged threate were issued by the wife. It is not disputed that the parties were married on 5. 5. 1986 and the wife is living separate as Satna with her parents from 8. 4. 87. In between the period she lived with the husband 7 or 8 times, she also gave birth to a male child on 1. 4. 1987 in a Hospital at Katni. According to the wife, the husband and his parents kept on precaurising her to arrange a Scooter as dowry and on account of her inability to fulfil the demands, they inflicted all kinds of harms to her. They ill-treated and even threatened to kill her by burning. She has also filed a criminal case under Section 490-A, I. P. C. against the respondent. ( 5. ) THE plaintiff as P. W. 1 stated that she (the appellant) asked him to get himself transferred to Satna else after committing suicide she would get him involved. Here also the plaintiff did not specify any date. The plaintiff did not also state her demand of separation from his parents. ( 5. ) THE plaintiff as P. W. 1 stated that she (the appellant) asked him to get himself transferred to Satna else after committing suicide she would get him involved. Here also the plaintiff did not specify any date. The plaintiff did not also state her demand of separation from his parents. Pradip Kumar (P. W. 2) stated that she gave the aforesaid threat at the time of discharge from the hospital on 8. 4. 87 when the husband wanted to take her to his house. This is not even the plaintiffs case nor the plaintiff made any statement to that effect. He admitted that he is the close friend of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness. At this stage, I may also refer to the notice Ex. P-l sent by the husband through his Advocate to the wife. In this notice, there is no allegation of threat to commit suicide. Had there been any ring of truth in the plaintiffs allegation that she had threatened to commit suicide, one would expect mention of that fact in the notice even if he failed to lodge any report in the police station. ( 6. ) A decree for divorce on any ground cannot be granted at the whim and fancy of the parties in the absence of any specific ground with material particulars and proof on record. In the present case, the plaintiff and his friend Pradip Kumar are the only witnesses to prove the threat of suicide. However, their statements are contradictory to each other. It must, therefore, be held that the plaintiff failed to prove the said allegations. It must also be held that the cruelty alleged has not been established. ( 7. ) THE appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the rial Court is set aside. The plaintiffs suit is dismissed with cost. Counsels tee Rs. 100/-, if certified.