JUDGMENT : T.K. Kaushal, J. Present appeal is directed u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'HM Act') against judgment dated 9.1.2001 passed by III Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 334/1999 by which the petition of appellant-husband for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion u/s 13 of the HM Act has been dismissed. On 26.2.1988 at Gaytri Shaktipeeth Mandir, Bhopal, appellant and respondent entered into a wedlock as per Hindu religion, rituals and rites. It was the second marriage of both the parties. Out of previous wedlock, respondent wife had a daughter Ku. Amiya born in 1985. Appellant was working as an Assistant Professor in MG Medical College, Bhopal and respondent was working as Assistant Professor in Nutan College, Bhopal. Parents of both the spouses used to live in their respective houses in Bhopal. After marriage, respondent came to live in the house of parents of the appellant E-3/38, Arera Colony, Bhopal. 2. According to divorce petition, respondent started ignoring the appellant and his family members. Respondent started spending more time in the house of her parents. At times, she refused to cook food for him even in emergency too. Such rude behavior and conduct of respondent towards the appellant and his family members was not acceptable, resulted in stress and frustration for the appellant. 3. The appellant also averred that in February, 1989, respondent conceived pregnancy but she was not interested in birth of child. At her behest, on 13.4.1989 she managed the abortion, against the will of the appellant. In November, 1989, respondent conceived pregnancy for the second time and again against the will of the appellant on 15.1.1990 succeeded in abortion. Respondent expressed her disinterest in physical relations and in further pregnancy with the appellant. 4. The appellant further stated that in November, 1990, he and respondent shifted in a rented house at E-7/656, Shahpura, Bhopal to avoid the alleged interference of his parents and to focus more on each other. But, interference of parents of respondent increased more during those days. On 14.1.1991 respondent misbehaved and forced the appellant to leave the rented house. On 19.11.1997 respondent purchased new house E-7/736 and started living in that house. Since then spouses are not living together. On 12.1.1998, appellant preferred the aforesaid petition for divorce u/s 13 of HM Act on the grounds of mental cruelty and separation. 5. On 14.1.1991 respondent misbehaved and forced the appellant to leave the rented house. On 19.11.1997 respondent purchased new house E-7/736 and started living in that house. Since then spouses are not living together. On 12.1.1998, appellant preferred the aforesaid petition for divorce u/s 13 of HM Act on the grounds of mental cruelty and separation. 5. According to the respondent, after sometime of marriage, the appellant started consuming liquor and spending late nights with his friends, gradually became a short tempered person. Appellant was interested only in a male child, hence always forced the respondent for abortion. First abortion was done under the pressure of the appellant after determination of sex of the child because it was female child. Second abortion was also done in full knowledge and influence of the appellant. There had been a third abortion also of respondent in August, 1990. Otherwise also, the appellant misbehaved with the parents of respondent many times. With a view to have his third marriage, appellant imputed false allegations of cruelty and separation on the respondent and preferred the petition on false and baseless grounds. 6. Trial Court framed two issues, regarding cruelty and willful separation by the respondent. By way of additional issue. Trial Court also examined the delay occurred in filing of petition. 7. In support of petition, the appellant examined himself and produced B.P. Tiwari, Head Clerk of Nutan College, Bhopal (PW/2), B.P. Agrawal, father of the appellant (PW/3), B.K. Pandey, neighbour (PW/4), Dr. Salil Kumar, neighbour and family friend (PW/5), Dhruv Narayan Singh, friend (PW/6) as his witnesses. On behalf of respondent, R.A. Khanna, father of the respondent (DW/1), Anjali, the respondent (PW/2), Dilip Kumar Mishra, another friend of parents (DW/3), Uttam Kumar Tiwari (DW/4), Satya Sagar Shrivastava (DW/5) and Vikram Singh Gour (DW/6) were produced as witnesses. 8. In the present case, main issue to be decided is whether three abortions of the respondent were a result of her sole choice or they were undertaken under the pressure of the appellant. In respect of first abortion, in para. 10, the appellant has said that he consented for abortion because wife compelled him for the same. In para. 11, in respect of the second abortion, he stated that since respondent has consumed some pills/substance for abortion therefore for her safety he took her to Dr. Rangdekar and out of compulsion only abortion had to be done. 10, the appellant has said that he consented for abortion because wife compelled him for the same. In para. 11, in respect of the second abortion, he stated that since respondent has consumed some pills/substance for abortion therefore for her safety he took her to Dr. Rangdekar and out of compulsion only abortion had to be done. Regarding third abortion, appellant expressed his total ignorance and unwillingness. 9. On the other hand, on perusal of para. 17 to para. 23 of the evidence of respondent, it is revealed that though technically her consent was necessary for abortion and she gave the consent to doctor every time but it was under the pressure of the appellant only. At the time of first abortion, sex determination was done by Dr. Siddhe, a friend of the appellant in Indore. At a very advance stage of pregnancy, it was terminated under the full knowledge and due to intervention of the appellant. Main reason for abortion was that she had conceived a girl child. Doctors performed the abortions because the appellant was also in the same profession and they were his friends. Without consent and knowledge of the appellant, it was not at all possible for her to manage aforesaid abortions. After a period of five months only from the date of first abortion, she again got pregnant. Sex determination report was also sent at the address of the appellant itself by the concerned doctor. This conclusively proves that the appellant wanted only a male child and forced the respondent to abort when the child conceived on test was found to be female. Hence, it also cannot be held that cruelty was on the part of the respondent. 10. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant and respondent under joint decision had left the house of parents of appellant and started living initially in a rented house and then shifted to the house owned by respondent and hence it can fairly be presumed that it was the choice of the respondent to live wherever she liked; firstly in the house of parents of the appellant and then in a rented house with and ultimately she moved to her own house. Whereas, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that due to unpredictable, suspicious, short tempered behavior of the appellant, he made it impossible for respondent to live with him irrespective of the house whether it was parent house, rented house or it was her own house. Trial Court has elaborately appreciated the fact on the issue in correct manner that the respondent was not responsible for separation between the parties. 11. Placing reliance on Pankaj Mahajan Vs. Dimple @ Kajal, (2011) 12 SCC 1 , learned Counsel for the appellant submits that cruelty should be ascertained from everyday chores including acts and attitude of wife like late coming in the house and refusing to do the household work. In present case, the spouses are professionals and well educated. They had married for the second time. Therefore, if they started living in their own separate houses in the same town, both are to be blamed. Appellant also equally contributed for the separation. Accordingly, we hold that abortions by the respondent were done under the pressure of the appellant. For separation between the parties respondent alone was not responsible. Appellant could not succeed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion pleaded by him. We accordingly affirm the findings given by the Trial Court on the issues and also the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.