and went to live with the parents, on the pretext of studying and being in advanced pregnancy. Later, she refused to return to the house of the appellant, despite his frequent visits and requests but the family of the respondent kept complaining about appellant and his mother. According to the appellant, a prank call was made to him on 02.05.1994, telling him that the child has been born but when he along with family members reached the hospital, he found none present. This act was only to torture the appellant. 18. Subsequently, one week later, the daughter was born on 09.05.1994 and the appellant went to the hospital, to plead with her to return to the matrimonial home but he was not even allowed to touch his daughter for three months during which time, the respondent remained in her parental home when he was not even allowed to see the daughter. The efforts of reconciliation were made by the appellant and was eventually respondent was prevailed upon by the family members of the appellant, to return back to the matrimonial home. The parents had even apologised for the sake of peace and to bring back the respondent in the matrimonial home. She finally returned to the matrimonial home along with the daughter, on 06.07.1994. 19. The respondent has not denied this second separation but has explained that in March, 1994, about two months before the birth of elder daughter, the appellant picked up the fight as the respondent wanted to appear for her DNB Examination, which was not to the liking of the appellant since he did not want her to rise in her career. He left the respondent outside her parental home where she had to wait for hours for her parents to return and let her in the house. Though, she has claimed that despite being informed, appellant had come to see the daughter on her birth in the hospital only for 15 minutes and not visited thereafter, but she has
