JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - The present appeal has been filed by Amit Kumar @ Lakhpat Goel (appellant) against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.09.2012 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the petition of the respondent-Rekha Rani under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘Act’ for short) seeking divorce has been allowed. Along with the appeal, CM No. 9368-CII of 2013 has been filed seeking condonation of 95 days delay in filing the appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant who has been engaged through the legal aid at considerable length. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Babain, District Kurukshetra on 02.05.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at village Singhpura-Mohalla, Barara, District Ambala and cohabited with each other. However, they had no issue from their marriage. The respondent-Rekha Rani, who was petitioner before the District Court, Kurukshetra alleged that since it was the first marriage in the family, a huge amount was spent on the marriage. After marriage, when she went to her matrimonial home, all the cash and jewellery were taken by the mother of the appellant and other jewellery which was given to the family members of the appellant for the use of the the appellant was also kept by them. From the very first day of the marriage, the appellant and his family members started taunting the respondent for bringing insufficient dowry and the appellant even slapped the respondent. Thereafter, it became routine for the appellant to beat the respondent, which he did so on many occasions. Out of the jewellery of the respondent, four gold bangles were given to the sister of the appellant namely Rita. On provocation of Rita and her husband namely Parveen, the appellant used to abuse the respondent. On 22.07.2004, the appellant gave a very severe beating to the respondent and he raised a demand for a ‘Splendor’ motor cycle or money in lieu of the motor cycle. The brother of the appellant also threatened the respondent stating that earlier they had killed one lady in the family and she would also be killed in the same manner. On 22.07.2004, the appellant gave a very severe beating to the respondent and he raised a demand for a ‘Splendor’ motor cycle or money in lieu of the motor cycle. The brother of the appellant also threatened the respondent stating that earlier they had killed one lady in the family and she would also be killed in the same manner. The respondent was sent back to her parental home, where she conveyed the said demand to her father who gave her Rs.60,000/- in cash which were handed over by her to the appellant. After some days, the appellant and his family members started beating the respondent and they also did not provide any food to her and confined her in a room. The respondent was not allowed to talk to her parents on telephone. On being asked to return four bangles of the respondent, she was given a severe beating by the appellant on the instigation of his sister. The appellant also demanded the entire amount of the respondent which she had earned from teaching and tuition work before marriage along with Rs.2,00,000/- in addition to that amount. On refusal by the respondent, she was given a severe beating by the appellant. The respondent kept on bearing all the cruelties with the hope that good sense would prevail upon the appellant and his relatives but in vain. On 23.08.2004, the brother of the respondent visited her but the respondent was threatened by the appellant and his family members not to disclose anything to him otherwise they would finish her. The appellant and his family members also misbehaved with the brother of the respondent. The brother of the respondent requested the parents of the appellant to send his sister to her parental home for a few days and on this, she was sent with a few clothes. On reaching her parental home, she narrated the entire circumstances to her parents. On 07.12.2004, a Panchayat was convened where the father and brother-in-law of the appellant repeated their demand for cash amount; besides, they also levelled false allegations about the character of the respondent. On hearing this, the father of the respondent could not tolerate the same and he suffered a heart attack and died at the spot. Neither the appellant nor his relatives attended the last rites of the father of the respondent. On hearing this, the father of the respondent could not tolerate the same and he suffered a heart attack and died at the spot. Neither the appellant nor his relatives attended the last rites of the father of the respondent. A criminal case FIR No. 115 dated 07.12.2005 was registered by an uncle of the respondent against the appellant, his father, mother, brother, sister and brother-in-law for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The said case was still pending in the Court at Kurukshetra. A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed by the respondent, in which the appellant did not appear. It is submitted that since 23.08.2004, the respondent had been living at her parental home. Due to intervention of the relatives of the respondent namely Mam Chand, Dishant, Jai Pal and Satish Kumar some Panchayats were convened but the appellant did not realize his mistakes and flatly refused even to talk. He even refused to return the ‘streedhana’ of the respondent. However, it was decided that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be paid by the appellant and members of his family to the respondent in lieu of the cost of the dowry articles. The respondent keeping in view her family circumstances, agreed to file a petition under Section 13- B of the Act and receive the said amount as full and final payment towards settlement. Accordingly, HMS case No. 97 of 2010 was filed on 08.03.2011. Both the parties made a joint statement to dissolve their marriage but after signing the statement, the appellant changed his stand and stated before the Court that he never wanted to give consent for divorce by way of mutual consent and that the consent was given due to fear of conviction in a criminal case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The petition was withdrawn by the respondent vide order dated 25.04.2011 with permission to file a fresh petition under Section 13 of the Act. During the period of 7 years, the respondent had not condoned the acts of cruelties of the appellant and his family members. 4. Notice of the petition filed by the respondent was served upon the appellant but he did not appear in Court despite service and he was proceeded against ex-parte. 5. During the period of 7 years, the respondent had not condoned the acts of cruelties of the appellant and his family members. 4. Notice of the petition filed by the respondent was served upon the appellant but he did not appear in Court despite service and he was proceeded against ex-parte. 5. On the basis of unrebutted evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra decreed the petition of the respondent on 22.09.2012 and passed an ex-parte decree of divorce with costs, dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 13 (ia) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal through the legal aid along with an application seeking condonation of delay. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length, we are of the view that the endeavour on the part of the appellant from the facts and circumstances as have been enumerated above, is to harass the respondent. It may be noticed that the appellant has not put in appearance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He initially made a statement in the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act giving his consent for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by mutual consent. Later, he retracted from his consent and withdrew the same. On account of this, the respondent had to withdraw the petition under Section 13-B of the Act to file a petition under Section 13 of the Act. In fact there was no other option left with the respondent except to file a petition under Section 13 (ia) of the Act. The respondent has proved on record that the appellant had time and again raised demands for dowry. On her failure to meet the demands she was given a beating on many occasions. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 SC 121 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the demand for dowry is prohibited under law and that by itself is bad enough. This amounts to cruelty entitling the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. The appellant in the present case, as has already been noticed, has been adopting shifting and vacillating stands. He first gives his consent for mutual divorce and then withdraws it. He does not appear in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This amounts to cruelty entitling the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. The appellant in the present case, as has already been noticed, has been adopting shifting and vacillating stands. He first gives his consent for mutual divorce and then withdraws it. He does not appear in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He does not put in appearance in the present proceedings and after he has been proceeded against ex parte, he files the present appeal. He does not want to pay for maintenance and litigation expenses for the respondent. During the course of hearing, we asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how would the appellant bear the litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite of the respondent, the learned counsel has submitted that the present appeal has been filed through a legal aid counsel and the appellant does not have the means and resources to pay the same. In fact it appears that the appellant wants to project a case as if he has no means to pay the litigation expenses and it is for the said reason that the appeal has been filed through the legal aid so that he is able to avoid payment of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, which he has been able to do so by not putting in appearance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Otherwise it is quite well settled that all able bodied persons are expected to maintain their wife and provide for them. 8. There is also a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. It may also be noticed that in the application seeking condonation of delay, it is submitted that the applicant/appellant had no knowledge about the passing of the decree against him. In fact, the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra recorded that the appellant had been duly served and the same is to be accepted; besides, taken as absolute verity as a record of the proceedings and act on it. The appellant in fact has not stated as to how he came to know about passing of the decree in the first week of February. It is submitted that he had applied for the issuance of a certified copy of the decree which was received by him on 20.02.2013. The appellant in fact has not stated as to how he came to know about passing of the decree in the first week of February. It is submitted that he had applied for the issuance of a certified copy of the decree which was received by him on 20.02.2013. Thereafter, the appellant through his counsel inspected the record and came to know about the exparte proceedings initiated against him. It is not even remotely mentioned as to whether there was any defect in his being proceeded against ex parte. In any case it is quite evident that the appellant had engaged a counsel, may be for inspecting the record only. He then approached the Legal Aid Service Authority at Chandigarh for filing the appeal. The reasons given for condoning the delay do not make out any sufficient cause for condoning the same. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra has rightly decreed the petition of the respondent-Rekha Rani and granted divorce to her. The same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————