JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short the Act) against the dismissal of his petition for divorce by the Court of III Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal. 2. According to the husband's case, the parties were married on 18th of November, 1981. They both belonged to Bengali community. The husband is employed in the Post and Telegraph Department at Bhopal. The wife has now taken up service in Military Engineering Services on the post of Centre Incharge. 3. The present appeal was dismissed by this Court on 28.1.1992 only on the ground of bar of limitation by rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The husband preferred a special leave petition is the Supreme Court in which by order dated 25th April, 1994 the case has been remitted to this Court with directions to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to decide the same on merits on payment of cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent/wife. It is on the directions of the Supreme Court and on compliance of the terms laid down therein that this case has been heard for decision on merits. 4. The husband seeks a decree of divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty. In support of his case, he examined himself as A.W. 2. According to his version, their married life was not peaceful right from the beginning. It is alleged that his in-laws used to come to his house and quarrelled with him by insisting that he should separate from his parents. It is also alleged by him that the wife used to quarrel with him and leave his house to live with her parents as and when she desired. On 5.3.1982 his in-laws came to his house in his absence. They abused his mother and threatened her. His neighbours Vishakarma and Rai tried to pacify them, but they went back angrily. On that date, the wife also went alongwith her parents and later on offered a false excuse that she was taken for her examination. On 5.3.1982 his in-laws came to his house in his absence. They abused his mother and threatened her. His neighbours Vishakarma and Rai tried to pacify them, but they went back angrily. On that date, the wife also went alongwith her parents and later on offered a false excuse that she was taken for her examination. According to the husband, he thereafter number of times went to his in-laws to bring back the wife but they refused to send her and suggested that he would be provided with a plot in Bairagarh and he should live there. 5. According to the husband, on 19.1.1983 the wife gave birth to a male child. On that date he was on leave but the intimation of birth of the child was given to him through the Postpmaster in the Post Office. According to him, he had no physical contact with the wife from 5.3.1982 i.e. the date when the left the matrimonial home, till 19.1.1983 when the child was born. He, therefore, doubted the paternity of the child. 6. The husband instituted Matrimonial Case No. 138/83 for grant of divorce in the Court at Bhopal which according to him, ended on 6.4.1984 in the course of reconciliation proceedings in which on the suggestion of the Presiding Judge of the Matrimonial Court he brought the wife to his house. Thereafter, she lived with him for about a month but did not allow him any phusical contact. Her behaviour was not good and she did not participate in the domestic duties. Her in-laws continued to visit them and always quarrelled. During their joint living for a brief period of one month, she did not allow him any sexual intercourse and used to excuse him of being impotant. In cross-examination he stated that as and when he tried to establish physical contact she rebelled his advances by giving a threat that she would put herself to fire or jump form the balcony. 7. The husband in his statement also alleged adultery against the wife stating that he had received information that she had developed illicit relationship with a son of Hazari. According to him, she underwent an abortion of 9th of December, 1984 in the P.&. T. Dispensary (as per medical certificates Exs. P/2 and P/3 and discharge certificate Ex.P/4.) Tlie above abortion was done in the absence of the husband and without his consent. 8. According to him, she underwent an abortion of 9th of December, 1984 in the P.&. T. Dispensary (as per medical certificates Exs. P/2 and P/3 and discharge certificate Ex.P/4.) Tlie above abortion was done in the absence of the husband and without his consent. 8. On 15.7.1985, the father-in-law of the husband lodged a police report (Ex.P/ 7) against the husband and his family members alleging that the wife was ill-treated by them. On that report, they were kept in police custody. 9. The husband in support of his case examined Champalal Vishwakarma (P.W. 3) who is alleged to have witnessed the quarrels of the couple and between the members of their families as he lives in the neighbourhood. He also examined his mother Rani Prabha (P.W. 4) to corroborate his version of quarrlesome attitude of the wife and her realtions. P.W. 5 T.K. Pal, brother of the husband also has been examined only to corroborate about the nature of differences and cause of annoyance between the parties. 10. The wife has denied all the allegations. According to her, she was treated with cruelty in the matrimonial home by the husband and his family members. She has examined herself as D.W. 1 and in her statement has deposed that they were married in November, 1981 and upto March, 1982 there was a normal married life between them., Thereafter, the quarrels began between them because her mother- in-law used to complain against her every day when the husband returned from the office. They (the husband and his mother) together used to beat her. She was offered food separately. Nobody talked to her and she was not allowed to meet any one from her mother's side. On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan festival in 1982s she has gone to her parents and at that time she had four months' pregnancy from the husband. After she went to her parents, she sent many messages and wrote letters, but the husband never came to take her back to the matrimonial home. In 1993 a male child was born to her and its intimation was sent, yet no one from her husband's side came to take her. The husband, thereafter, filed a divorce petition in which in reconciliation, he brought her back to the matrimonial home. In 1993 a male child was born to her and its intimation was sent, yet no one from her husband's side came to take her. The husband, thereafter, filed a divorce petition in which in reconciliation, he brought her back to the matrimonial home. After few days, the husband again started ill-treating her and refused to allow any member of her mother's side to meet her or to visit her. 11. According to the wife, on 20th April, 1985, the husband left her at the bus- stop and suggested to her that if she is going to her parents house, she should return only with a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In May, 1985, her brother again brought her to the matrimonial home. Thereupon, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law started making enquiries about the money. When she said that her father was a retired person the husband beat her. According to her, the husband and the members of his family also gave a threat to her that if the demands were not fulfilled they would defame her as woman of bad character and would divorce her. On 12th June, 1985, the husband and in-laws beat her and pushed her out of the house saying that she should return only with sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, she made a report of the incident to the Police Station, T.T. Nagar, when she returned to the matrimonial home, she found the house locked from outside and the husband and other members of the house had gone somewhere. Therefore, she went to their parents' house. She denied in the cross-examination that she had any illicit connection with any person by name]. Pal. She denied that she refused the husband access for sexual intercourse. With regard to abortion, she stated that for that purpose for the first time he husband himself had taken her to hospital. She denied that the abortion was done against the wishes of the husband. 12. The wife in support of her case examined her father S. Dasgupta (D.W 2). The father of the wife in his deposition stated that after marriage, his daughter for the first time came to their house, she complained of ill-treatment to her He confirmed that the wife used to complain that she was not being treated properly and the husband and in-laws used to beat her. The father of the wife in his deposition stated that after marriage, his daughter for the first time came to their house, she complained of ill-treatment to her He confirmed that the wife used to complain that she was not being treated properly and the husband and in-laws used to beat her. According to him, when a child was born to the wife, due intimation was given to the husband but there was no response and nobody from his family had come to see the child. He stated that the earlier divorce petition filed by the husband ended in compromise in the year 1984. In her second visit after reconciliation, she was not allowed to participate in the daily chores and was not allowed to take food alongwith other members of the house. She was provided food in a separate room. Whenever the father went to see her, the husband did not allow him to meet her. In May, 1995, she was driven out of the house by saying that she should bring Rs. 10,000/- without which she would have no place in the house. According to the father, he made attempts to persuade the husband and his family members, once when such attempts was made, they were not permitted to enter the house and were asked to go to the house of Vishwakarma where, according to the husband, they would hold a meeting. A joint meeting was held at the house of Vishwakarma, in which the mother of the husband also came. The father requested the mother-in-law to accommodate the daughter. The wife also touched her feet. Even then the mother-in-law gave her a push and did not take her to the matrimonial home. It is thereafter that a police report was lodged at T.T. Nagar, Police Station. 13. On the above evidence, the Trial Court refused to grant decree of divorce to the husband. 14. Mr. R.P. Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/husband in this appeal, submits that there was no jurisdiction for the trial Judge to disbelieve the version of the husband that the wife has deserted him. It should have been held that the conduct and behaviour of the wife amounted to acts of cruelty and desertion. 14. Mr. R.P. Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/husband in this appeal, submits that there was no jurisdiction for the trial Judge to disbelieve the version of the husband that the wife has deserted him. It should have been held that the conduct and behaviour of the wife amounted to acts of cruelty and desertion. In the alternative, it is submitted that the relations between the parties have become so much strained that the marriage has practically been broken down and it would be in the interest of the parties to dissolve the marriage. Reliance is placed on Vimla Laskani v. Dr. Chandraprakash Ladkani, 1996JLJ 42. 15. Mr. Qamruddin, learned Counsel appearing for the wife, supported the judgment of dismissal of the divorce petition passed by the Court below. 16. The only question to be answered by this Court is whether the husband can be believed on his version of the events in their married life. It cannot readily be believed that for no cause or justification whatsoever the members of the family of the wife would go to the husband's house to quarrel and threaten him. The occasion must have been furnished by some unpleasant situation in the married life of the parties at the house of the husband. Admittedly, there are two serious allegations made by the husband against the wife that the first child born to her on 19.1.1983 is not his legitimate child and on 8th of December, 1984 she aborted in P&T dispensary without knowledge and consent. 17. It is an admitted case that after marriage in November, 1981 the parties lived together as husband and wife. The child born on 19.1.1983 in the house of the parents of the wife could, therefore, be begotten from the husband who had access to the wife in the initial period of their marriage. According to the husband's own case, they lived after marriage upto 5.3.1982 on which date she went back with her parents to their house. There is, therefore, a presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, of legitimacy of the child during subsistence of a valid marriage and the burden to prove non-access between the parties so as to beget a child is on the husband who alleges illegitimacy. There is, therefore, a presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, of legitimacy of the child during subsistence of a valid marriage and the burden to prove non-access between the parties so as to beget a child is on the husband who alleges illegitimacy. See: the following observations of the Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC 2295 : "..........It is are buttable presumption of law under Section 112 that a child born during the lawful wedlock is letigimate, and that access occurred between the parties. This presumption can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence, and not by a mere balance of probabilities. In this case, the husband has not at all discharged the above burden; what to say of satisfactory: It is only in his deposition that he alleged the illegitimate relationship of his wife with one J. Pal or son of Hazari. In cross-examination he admitted that the above allegation is not mentioned by him in his divorce petition. Such allegation, therefore, on the face of it, is reckless and irresponsible. It is also admitted that the earlier divorce petition filed by him was compromised in April, 1984 and thereafter he had brought back the wife to live with him. It is, therefore, not open to him to take the plea of illegitimacy of the child born to her in January, 1983. By agreeing to reconcile and jointly live with her, he himself condoned the lapse, if any, on the part of the wife. Reliance is placed on Chandra Mohini v. Avinash Prasad, AIR 1967SC 581, where it has been held that the fact that the husband cohabited with wife even after knowledge that she had been guilty of cohabiting with another person would be sufficient to constitute condonation. 18. It is alleged by the husband that on 8th of December, 1984 the wife underwent an operation for abortion without his knowledge and consent. The medical certificates and discharge certificate (Exs. P/2, P/3 and P/4) show that the treatment and abortion was in P & T dispensary as the husband was employed in the P&T department. There is no reason to disbelieve the wife that the husband himself had taken her for medical examination to the said dispensary. The medical certificates and discharge certificate (Exs. P/2, P/3 and P/4) show that the treatment and abortion was in P & T dispensary as the husband was employed in the P&T department. There is no reason to disbelieve the wife that the husband himself had taken her for medical examination to the said dispensary. Even after this incident of abortion, admittedly, the spouses lived together upto 20.4.1985 on which date she is alleged to have deserted the matrimonial home. 19. The third allegation made against the wife is that she had lodged a false report against the husband and his family members in the police resulting in registration of a case under Section 498A, I.P.C. for ill-treating for dowry demands. There is nothing on record as to what happened to that criminal case. In the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the husband stated that the criminal case has resulted in acquittal. The Counsel for the wife submits that the acquittal was not on a finding that the accusation but it was held that the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of any copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the allegations made in the police report by the wife were false and concocted. There is no reason to disbelieve the consistent version with regard to their married life given by the wife and her father that she was treated with cruelty in the house of the husband which led to differences between the two families and eventually their separation. The wife cannot be disbelieved that she was not receiving the kind of treatment expected by a house-wife. As has already been observed above, it is most unlikely that the members of the family of the wife were so offensive as to enter the house of the husband when tine wife was living with him and to abuse and threaten them. It can, therefore, be easily conceived and inferred from the nature of evidence on record that there were quarrel and differences between them and the wife suffered ill- treatment at the hands of the husband and His family members. It can, therefore, be easily conceived and inferred from the nature of evidence on record that there were quarrel and differences between them and the wife suffered ill- treatment at the hands of the husband and His family members. In the circum- stances, the acts on the part of the wife to leave the matrimonial home and to lodge a police report are her desparate acts after all efforts to reconcile, despite the conclusion of the first divorce petition, had failed. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court affirms the judgment of the Court below and dismissal of the divorce petition filed by the husband. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but without any costs.