JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the husband against the judgment dated 20.12.1996 passed by the District Judge, Chhatarpur in C.S. No. 36-A/96 whereby his petition against the respondent/wife for grant of a decree of divorce has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/husband is a doctor who earlier practised at Bijawar and is now practising at Chhatarpur. He was married to the respondent on 28.6.1993 at Chhatarpur. The wife is daughter of B.P. Pandey (PW 2) who retired as Principal of a reputed College. 3. According to the husband's case, the parties lived together at Bijawar for few days after marriage. Then the couple shifted in August, 1993 to Chhatarpur where the husband has opened a private clinic for his practice. The allegation of the husband is that the wife used to frequently visit her parents at Chhatarpur without his permission and thus used to deprive him of her company. It is stated that from November, 1993 the wife has deserted the husband and is living with her parents and thus by depriving the husband of her conjugal company has caused him mental and physical distress. The husband sent several letters to her to return to the matrimonial home and gave her a registered notice on 4.8.1994 which remained unresponded. The divorce petition was filed by the husband on 16.9.1994 on the ground of alleged desertion and cruelty. 4. The wife resisted the divorce proceedings and in her reply has stated that right from the first day of their marriage, the husband had great expectations for dowry from the father of the wife. When they came to live to Chhatarpur, he has been insisting on her to pursuade her father to get a house for them on rent. He went on insisting for the same and therefore, her father purchased by registered sale deed a plot measuring 50' x 55' in her name on 21.10.1993 for Rs. 69,000/-. The original sale deed has been exhibited and proved as Ex. D/1. According to the wife, this arrangement and substantial financial assistance by providing a plot to the couple also did not satisfy the husband as he was angry for the reason that the registered sale deed was executed not in his favour but in favour of the wife. 69,000/-. The original sale deed has been exhibited and proved as Ex. D/1. According to the wife, this arrangement and substantial financial assistance by providing a plot to the couple also did not satisfy the husband as he was angry for the reason that the registered sale deed was executed not in his favour but in favour of the wife. The wife tried to pursuade and pacify him and agreed to get the plot transferred in his name, yet the husband did not feel satisfied. The husband, thereafter, continued to make various other demands for house and accommodation for his clinic. He also openly declared that if his demands were not fulfilled, he would divorce the wife and remarry in which he might get much more dowry. The wife had in fact seen him and his mother talking to an unknown person for marriage negotiations. According to the wife, thereafter, the husband demanded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs and said that in case the demand is not fulfilled, he would be free to divorce her and re-marry. 5. According to the wife, a child was born on 23.11.1993 in the parental family of the wife to her brother. The couple went to see the new born and the husband surprisingly left the wife there itself and did not bring her back to his house, although he promised to take her back. He, thereafter, came only to attend the birth day ceremony of the new born and made a demand from the father of the wife of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. According to her, there had been constant efforts from November, 1993 by herself and by her father that the husband should desist from making unreasonable demands and should restore the conjugal relationship. In that process, to bring about reconciliation between them, the father of the wife again got a registered sale deed executed of another plot on 5.12.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 29,000/-. The original document of sale deed is on record as Ex. D/2. The above two sale deeds executed by the father of the wife did not satisfy the husband who had filed this petition for divorce on false allegations and grounds. 6. 29,000/-. The original document of sale deed is on record as Ex. D/2. The above two sale deeds executed by the father of the wife did not satisfy the husband who had filed this petition for divorce on false allegations and grounds. 6. The learned Trial Judge, on the state of evidence mentioned above, dismissed the divorce petition of the husband holding that he cannot take advantage of his own wrongs and claim a decree of divorce against the wife. The allegations of the wife that the husband has been making demands after demands from the father of the wife has been found to be proved from the documentary and oral evidence on record. 7. Mr. Atul Awasthy, learned Counsel appearing for the husband, made strenuous efforts to pursuade this Court, they have set up a false case that the wife and her father should be disbelieved that the husband had foresaken the wife only because his demands for dowry were not fulfilled. It is submitted that one of the plots purchased under the two sale deeds was just adjacent to the parental house of the wife and has been purchased describing her name as 'Treeti Pandey' and not 'Preeti Tiwari' as it should have been after her marriage. The other sale deed Ex. D/1 was also executed not for fulfilling the demands of the husband but only to secure some property for the wife. It is submitted that false allegations against the husband of demand of dowry amounts to cruelty on the part of the wife and the appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Reliance is placed on Pushpa Datt Mishra v. Smt. Archana Mishra, AIR 1992 MP 260 . 8. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Dixit, learned Counsel who appeared for the wife to support the dismissal of the divorce petition. It is argued on behalf of the wife that there is ample evidence on record to show that the husband is guilty of desertion of the wife as he was not satisfied with the financial assistance in the kind of plots given by the father of the wife. It is submitted that the petition for divorce on the ground of alleged desertion is premature, having been filed within less than two years' period from the date of alleged desertion. It is submitted that the petition for divorce on the ground of alleged desertion is premature, having been filed within less than two years' period from the date of alleged desertion. It is also submitted that on the facts on record, and as found by the Trial Judge, no case of cruelty is made out on the part of the wife for dissolving the marriage. 9. At the outset, the prayer for decree of divorce on the ground of alleged desertion of the wife has to be rejected on the sole ground that the petition for divorce filed for the purpose is premature. In the divorce petition, the wife is alleged to have deserted the husband in November, 1993. The divorce petition has been filed on 16.9.1994, within less than two years' period, as provided in Section 13(l)(ib)of the Act. 10. The other ground urged on behalf of the husband is only of cruelty by the wife in leaving the matrimonial home and depriving the husband of conjugal company. I have examined carefully and critically the statements of the husband and the wife recorded in the Court below as also of other witnesses including the father of the wife. The wife and her father have given very clear, consistent and credible version of the nature of demands and consequent differences that arose between the husband on one side and the wife and her parents on the other. Their testimony was withstood the test of cross-examination. The circumstances and events narrated by the wife and her father also get support from the two registered sale deeds of two plots got executed by the father in the name of the wife. Not much help can be derived for his case by the husband by stating that one of the plots purchased in the name of his wife describing her as 'Preeti Pandey' i.e. her pre-marriage name was for the use of the family of the wife only as it was adjoining to the residence of the father. The father was explained that he got the sale deeds executed in the name of the wife only to avoid inquiries from the income-tax department. Such inquiries were imminent if they were purchased in the name of the husband who was not a medical practitioner of very long standing. The father was explained that he got the sale deeds executed in the name of the wife only to avoid inquiries from the income-tax department. Such inquiries were imminent if they were purchased in the name of the husband who was not a medical practitioner of very long standing. In this respect, it is worth-noticing that the husband in paragraph 23 of his cross-examination claims to have purchased the plot under registered sale deed dated 22.10.1993 (Ex. D/l) from his own money but in the name of his wife. It does not appear natural when, according to him, there were no cordial relations in their family life. He would not have purchased the plot in the name of his wife instead of his own name if he had the requisite money and could explain the same to everyone including the Authorities. He cannot be believed when he explains in cross-examination that the purchase price for the plot was not withdrawn by him from any of his Bank accounts, but two years' stipend in the sum of Rs. 8,000/- which he had received during his stipendiary period was kept by him with his mother and she paid that amount to the wife for obtaining the registered sale deed. This is clearly a cooked-up story to some how explain the registered document Ex. D/1. It is also to be noted that the wife in her written statement itself has taken a plea in her defence that the husband has been making unreasonable demands for financial assistance from the father of the wife and to satisfy him, her father had acquired two plots by registered sale deeds in her name. In reply to such a plea taken at the earliest opportunity by the wife in her written statement the petitioner/husband did not take any such counter plea in his petition itself which he could have done very easily as the matter was so vital and important for the decision of the case between the parties. 11. On behalf of the husband, it is emphatically contended that the second sale deed of the plot executed on 5.12.1994 for Rs. 29,000/- was in the name of the wife describing in her pre-marriage name of 'Preeti Pandey' and was a purchase for the father of the wife as the plot is adjoining to the house of the father. 11. On behalf of the husband, it is emphatically contended that the second sale deed of the plot executed on 5.12.1994 for Rs. 29,000/- was in the name of the wife describing in her pre-marriage name of 'Preeti Pandey' and was a purchase for the father of the wife as the plot is adjoining to the house of the father. It is also contended that the husband sent a registered notice to the wife to return, but she did not reply which shows that she had no intention to return to the husband. 12. In my considered opinion, none of the above circumstances in any manner belies the case of the wife that the husband is guilty of ill-treating and forsaking her for non-fulfilment of his various demands of money and property. The father has explained the reasons for purchase of the two plots in the name of the wife. According to him, that would have avoided enquiries by Authorities against the husband as he had no apparent means to acquire such a property. The father of the wife in his deposition has explained that it was with great difficulty that he could raise funds by taking loan from his provident fund account for purchase of the plots to satisfy the unreasonable demands of the husband so that his daughter may live in peace. The omission on the part of the wife in not sending any reply to the registered notice of the husband can also be understood. The wife was always been willing to live with the husband. From the record it appears that the husband has deserted her. He had sent a registered notice. Possibly, the wife to avoid unpleasant situation and with desire not to aggravate their differences, failed to reply. That alone cannot be taken to be a circumstance indicating that the wife was unwilling to live with the husband. In the divorce petition also, in the evidence, the husband has not been able to state any strong reason which would have led tine wife to leave her matrimonial home. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife is very much justified in saying that the husband himself is the guilty party and should not be rewarded by a decree of divorce for making such illegitimate demands of cash and property from the father of the wife. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife is very much justified in saying that the husband himself is the guilty party and should not be rewarded by a decree of divorce for making such illegitimate demands of cash and property from the father of the wife. He has deserted the wife so as to pressurise her father to satisfy his demands. Here the husband is the guilty party. He cannot be allowed to desert the wife and seek decree of divorce to enable him to re-marry. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.