IMPORTANT POINTS
When one party died during pendency of appeal, the cause of action subsists and his/her legal representatives should be brought on record to pursue the proceeding.
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground, by itself, for dissolution of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Bopanna,J.

1. The appellant herein is the wife of the original respondent who died during the pendency of this appeal. Since the order impugned passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 23.08.2006 in F.A.O.No.101-M of 1999 had allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage, the marital status of the appellant is in issue notwithstanding the death of respondent. As such, the cause of action has continued to subsist and the legal representatives namely, the daughter and sons of the deceased respondent were allowed to be brought on record by this Court through the order dated 05.09.2014 passed in IA No.3 of 2012. In that light, the instant appeal was heard in that backdrop. In that situation the reference made during the course of the order to the respondent would in effect refer to the original respondent, namely the deceased husband of the appellant.

2. The respondent herein instituted the proceedings in H.M.A. File No.133 of 16.12.1995 through the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage which was solemnized between the appellant and respondent during December, 1970 as per the Sikh rites. As on the date of filing the petition the parties had spent 25 years of married life and had be gotten two sons and a daughter from the wedlock, who were also grown up. At that stage the petition was filed by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of the marriage alleging mental cruelty inflicted upon him by the appellant herein. The parties herein though had resided in Ludhiana till 1988, had shifted to Bathinda thereafter. When this was the position, since the respondent was serving in the Armed Forces, he was posted at Nagaland in the year 1989 and was thereafter posted at Manipur till 1992. From the pleading as put forth before the District Court in the petition, the trigger for the dispute between the parties arose at the point when the appellant and the children had gone over to stay with the respondent at Manipur. According to the respondent herein he was suffering from gastric and related problems and due to his illness, a Punjabi family of Capt. Inderjit Singh looked after the petitioner. In that circumstance due to the affinity of the family the said Capt. Inderjit Singh is said to have sent his wife and children along with the respondent to Bathinda and they remained there while the respondent had taken treatment. Subsequent thereto all of them including the appellant and the children had also gone back to Manipur. Though the families were known to each other in that manner, according to the respondent the appellant herein started levelling baseless allegations against the respondent herein and his father. The wife of Capt. Inderjit Singh had conveyed this aspect to Capt. Inderjit Singh who thereafter told the respondent. The said incident is stated to have been raised by the respondent herein in the presence of the appellant to clarify the situation, but the appellant herein started shouting at the respondent and also alleged that the respondent herein had illegitimate relationship with the wife of Capt. Inderjit Singh.

3. The further details which led to the misunderstanding between the appellant and the respondent is adverted to in the petition filed before the court below. The respondent was thereafter posted at Amritsar and according to the respondent even at that point whenever the respondent visited Bathinda where the appellant and two sons were staying, the appellant again raised the said issue and made false allegations and also had sent the sons and a friend to keep a watch over the activities of the respondent. Certain other incidents which had taken place in Amritsar are referred to in the petition, which need not be elaborated herein. Apart from the same, the respondent has contended that the appellant had intentionally lodged a false report against the respondent to the S.P.(Operations) Bathinda due to which a case under Section 107/151 of