JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act was declined. 2. Two grounds were urged for seeking divorce. There have been urged again. These are: (i) certain acts of cruelty have been attributed to the respondent wife; and (ii) allegations with regard to adultery have been made. 3. The brief facts for the purposes of this appeal be noticed. 4. The marriage in this case took place on 28th of April, 1984. The parties lived together. The divorce petition was filed on 27th of June, 1987. Out of the wedlock there is one male child. The male child was born in January, 1985. 5. So far as the act of cruelty is concerned, it is said that on the very first day of married life, the respondent gave abuses to the appellant. Thereafter she was constantly telling him that she would have lived a better and happier life had she been married to an engineer or doctor. It is also alleged that she was unhappy because her husband was merely a Teacher. The above is the only basis for setting up the case on the ground of cruelty. 6. The second ground is based on adultery. This is based on the fact that the wife left the maternal home in May, 1984. The fact that a child was born in January, 1985, has been projected with a view to assert that the child so born is not from the lions of the appellant. 7. The above grounds were considered by the Court below. The Court below came to the conclusion that the allegations with regard to the cruelty have not been made out. The fact that this allegation was not made in the original petition, was taken note of. The further fact that allegation of cruelty was sought to be substantiated by making certain allegations by resorting to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was taken note of. 8. The mere assertion that the wife gave some abuses on the first day of the marriage cannot be believed. This was not the case in the original petition and an effort has been made to improve upon the same. 8. The mere assertion that the wife gave some abuses on the first day of the marriage cannot be believed. This was not the case in the original petition and an effort has been made to improve upon the same. Apart from this, this single utterance would not amount to an act of cruelty. After this, the parties have cohabited. Therefore, this single instance said to have taken place on the very first day of married life cannot be formed the basis to infer that the wife was guilty of such acts which may enable the husband to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to claim divorce on the ground of cruelty. The finding recorded by the Court below on this count cannot be faulted. 9. The second ground of adultery is again based on vague plea. An inference is sought to be drawn from the mere fact that a child was born after 9 months of the wife having left the husband's home. The appellant appeared as D.W. 1. His statement is to the effect that the wife came to the marital home in the month of January and a child was born after 15 days. The mother of the appellant was in the house. The fact that the wife was pregnant at the time when she came to the marital home caused no. surprise to the appellant or his mother. Even after the child was born, the child was well received in the family. No resentment was expressed by the husband or by any of his family members. As such, the mere fact that the child was born in the month of January, 1985, after the wife has left the maternal home in May, 1984 cannot be made a ground for the basis that the wife is guilty of such acts which would amount to adultery. The fact that the wife was welcommed back and she continued to stay in the house right upto 23rd of July, 1985, shows that this allegation has been based on mere surmises and conjectures. Had there been any truth in the allegation, then she would not have been welcommed back in the marital home. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to the costs.