JUDGMENT Dr. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J. Having lost his case of seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Additional District Judge, FTC, Sonepat, the husband has knocked at the doors of this Court by way of filing the present appeal. 2. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27-2-2002, making promises of enduring nature to be supportive and sustaining to each other. The marriage encountered rough weather when the respondent was not able to bear a child. The appellant-husband made allegations that the wife was sharp-tongued, and of quarrelsome nature and was not obedient to his commands as also in performance of household work. Claiming that such alleged conduct of the wife amounted to physical and mental cruelty, he filed a petition on 26-3-2009 for dissolution of the marriage. 3. Later, by way of an amendment made in the petition, it was also claimed that the respondent was having a hole in her heart due to which she had become aggressive and violent in addition to having become a psychiatric patient. It was pleaded that non-disclosure of this disease, to the petitioner, was a fraud which also was a sort of cruelty, in addition to rendering of the marriage as void. 4. Setting up a case of denial throughout, the wife claimed that she had never been disobedient or hostile towards the petitioner or his family members and rather had been performing her household duties with commitment and dedication. She elaborated that the husband was, rather, abusive and had also been misbehaving and maltreating her. It is claimed that to better her future prospects, she completed her nursing course of three years in completion of which the petitioner did not render any help to her and she had to borrow money from her parents. Stand of the wife is that absence of birth of a child from this marriage has brought miseries for her and when she refused to give mutual consent for divorce to the husband, her life in the matrimonial home became hell. Stand of the wife is that absence of birth of a child from this marriage has brought miseries for her and when she refused to give mutual consent for divorce to the husband, her life in the matrimonial home became hell. It is claimed that even relatives and respectables of village of the petitioner-husband had approached her and her parents on 20-1-2009 where pressure was mounted on them to dissolve the marriage through mutual consent so that the petitioner could marry again and fulfil his desire of having children from his loin. Denying all other allegations levelled by the petitioner-husband against her, the wife had strongly resisted the petition. 5. Oral as well as documentary evidence from the parties was recorded in support of their rival claims crystallized in the following issues framed on 4-2-2010 : 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the grounds as mentioned in the petition? 2. Relief. 6. On evaluation of the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties, learned lower court came to a firm finding that the husband has not been able to establish his case against the wife. Resultantly, deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 against him, his petition was dismissed. 7. In the present appeal, impugning the judgment of the learned lower Court and challenging dismissal of his petition, it is claimed by counsel for the appellant that non-disclosure or concealment of her disease, by the respondent, was in the nature of a fraud to be taken as cruelty towards him and this fact, by itself, was sufficient for grant of a decree of divorce in his favour but this aspect was ignored in the impugned judgment. It is claimed that there was over-interference from her parents and under their pressure, she wanted separation from family of the petitioner in mess and residence and even demanded division of property and when found resistance from the petitioner and his family members in her venture, she started picking up quarrels on trivial issues resulting in loss of peace in the matrimonial home. It is further claimed that during her three years nursing course, he had come to know that there were complications in her menstrual cycle which established that she could never be a mother. It is further claimed that during her three years nursing course, he had come to know that there were complications in her menstrual cycle which established that she could never be a mother. It came as a shock to him and despite treatment from good hospitals as PGI, Chandigarh and AIIMS, New Delhi, she could not be cured. Appellant also feels aggrieved by alleged non-consideration of his evidence which according to him proves his case against the wife to the hilt. Praying for acceptance of the appeal, dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce has been sought. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that every male has a desire to become a father but when he comes to know that he can never be a father, because his wife has some ailment and particularly when fact of such ailment was not disclosed to the husband, he finds himself defrauded and cheated. It is urged that this concealment on the part of the wife, is a sufficient ground for dissolution of marriage. 9. Plea of counsel for the respondent-wife, on the other hand, is that despite having been teased and tortured at the hands of the husband, she does not want dissolution of marriage. It is urged that she has no ailment which impedes her becoming a mother but if she has not been able to conceive, it is not her fault. Similarly, with regard to her heart ailment, it has been contended by counsel for the respondent-wife that neither she nor her parents had any knowledge of her ailment which came to their notice when she was taken to a hospital in Delhi for normal check up. It is urged that neither is it a case of concealment nor of fraud and the wife cannot be blamed. It is contended that the sole aim of the husband is to get rid of this marriage so that he may marry again to become father. It is thus urged that the petition by the husband is ill-motived and lacks bona fides as the same is based on contrived allegations which are far from the truth. Prayer for dismissal of the appeal is made. 10. It is thus urged that the petition by the husband is ill-motived and lacks bona fides as the same is based on contrived allegations which are far from the truth. Prayer for dismissal of the appeal is made. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties while going through the record of the lower Court and evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case in the interface of evidence led by the parties before the lower Court. 11. When contentions of the husband are evaluated on merits, it is found that except for his bald statement, he has not been able to produce any clinching evidence to show that the wife was suffering from any such physical or mental problem which would deny her to become a mother. During proceedings before the learned lower Court, when pointed cross-examination was effected on husband Sandeep (P.W. 1), he had conceded that he has no evidence to prove that the wife suffers from any such disease which would be an impediment in her becoming a mother. It has, however, been contended by learned counsel for the appellant-husband that when there is clear admission of the adversary i.e. the wife on this count, no evidence was required to be proved by the husband. Reference has been made to statement of respondent Smt. Geeta (RW 1) wherein she has made the following statement : “It is correct that there is septal defect in the heart which was got diagnosed in AIIMS, Delhi. I was medically checked up there in the presence of the petitioner and in-laws.” 12. During the course of arguments, it has been conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that the stated defect in her heart by itself constitutes no impediment in her becoming a mother. 13. Contention of the appellant that non-disclosure of heart problem was nothing less than fraud on the part of the wife, again lacks merit. In cross-examination of Smt. Geeta RW1 (reference to which statement has repeatedly been made by learned counsel for the appellant) clearly reveals that defect in her heart had come to her notice much after her marriage and only when she was under treatment in AIIMS, Delhi. There is absolutely no evidence that the respondent was suffering from any heart ailment earlier. There is absolutely no evidence that the respondent was suffering from any heart ailment earlier. During her cross-examination, Smt. Geeta (RW 1) has made the matter in dispute very clear and transparent, in the following words : “There is no dispute between the petitioner and me. Only the grievance of the petitioner is that I did not conceive any child after the marriage.” 14. On the contrary, when tenor of deposition of the husband is examined, it is hawkish and overbearing. A portion of cross-examination of husband Sandeep (P.W. 1) clinches the issue and for reference is reproduced as under : “It is correct that I do not want to keep the respondent with me only because of the fact that she has not conceived baby till she remained with me at matrimonial house. Volunteered to state that there are other reasons also.” 15. So far as reasons elaborated by the husband in the petition are concerned, those relate to alleged misbehaviour and the wife being of quarrelsome nature which are very general, sweeping and non-clinching and sequelly are of no legal consequence. 16. Emergence of a neighbour Ranbir Singh (P.W. 2) in the witness-box in this context, is of no significance in resolution of dispute, as he has not been able to point out any date, month or year of any quarrel between them. Relevant portion of cross-examination of this witness i.e. Ranbir Singh (P.W. 2) in this context is reproduced as below : “I cannot tell the exact date, month and year and time of any incident or event when there was any quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent and also between respondent and the family members of the petitioner.” 17. In this context, deposition of Jagat Singh (P.W. 3), who is none else than real uncle of the appellant, again is of no probative value because of close relationship of the witness with the appellant. Even when his statement is evaluated a little more closely, it is found to be of no legal value. Though Jagat Singh (P.W. 3) has generally mentioned about alleged quarrelsome nature of the respondent, yet he has conceded that he has no specific details of any quarrel whichever took place between the parties. Even when his statement is evaluated a little more closely, it is found to be of no legal value. Though Jagat Singh (P.W. 3) has generally mentioned about alleged quarrelsome nature of the respondent, yet he has conceded that he has no specific details of any quarrel whichever took place between the parties. For ready reference, relevant portion of cross-examination of Jagat Singh (P.W. 3) is reproduced as below : “No such complaint regarding the quarrel of the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent and family members of the petitioner was ever got lodged in the police station. I cannot tell any specific date, time, month and year when any quarrel took place between the petitioner and the respondent and also the respondent and the family members of the petitioner.” 18. Tek Ram (R.W. 2) is father of the respondent and while conceding that family members of the parties had met 2-3 times to resolve the matter, he has asserted that the entire dispute is of non-conceiving of a child by the respondent. Relevant portion of cross-examination of Tek Ram RW 2 is to the following effect : “It is correct that we and the family members of the petitioner had met 2/3 times to resolve the grievances of the petitioner about the non-conceiving of the child.” 19. It is important to examine as to whether failure of a wife to give birth to a child from the loins of her husband, is a ground of divorce? It is also to be examined whether such conduct of a wife would amount to cruelty in terms of provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act? 20. Being not able to conceive or to give birth to a child by a wife, cannot, by itself, be construed to be a ground for divorce because such a ground for divorce is not available in the Act. Non-bearing of a child by the wife, for no fault attributable to her behaviour or conduct cannot be construed as cruelty to the husband from the wife in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 21. Viewed from any angle, findings recorded by the learned lower Court on issue No. 1 being correct on facts and in law are affirmed. Sequelly, findings on issue No. 2 are also affirmed. 22. Affirming the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.