relationship between the respondents. The petitioner/appellant ought to have proved that prior to the said meeting there was direct evidence of respondent No.1 having voluntary sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2. The learned court below further rightly held that the tenor of Exhibit-1 shows that the so-called marriage between the respondents was imposed on the parties and rightly discarded the photograph, Exhibit-4. There is a specific issue framed required to pass a decree in terms of Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . The petitioner/appellant failed to discharge his burden in order to get the Issue No.1 decided in his favour which the learned court below has rightly decided against the petitioner/appellant. The other piece of evidence on record as submitted by Mr. Gupta cannot be held to be sufficient piece of evidence in order to decide the issues, more specifically the Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner/appellant. There is specific denial by the respondent No.1 as DW1 that she maintained extra marital relation with DW2, i.e., the respondent No.2. On the face of such denial both in the pleadings and the evidence of respondent No.1, in our opinion, the appellant/petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof and put the onus on the respondent No.1 to disprove the allegation of having voluntary sexual intercourse with respondent No.2.
