JUDGMENT :

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Family Court by which the petition filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) has been allowed and the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

2. The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.11.1977, at Patel Nagar, New Delhi, as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. Three children were born from the said wedlock. The parties have been living separately since 1995. A petition under Section 9 of HMA was filed by the appellant/wife in the year 2008, a compromise was arrived between the parties on 12.09.2008. The petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of HMA was filed by the respondent/husband on 01.08.2009.

3. The grounds on which the divorce was sought were that the appellant/wife was stated to be in an illicit relationship with one Mohd. Ahmad Ansari, a rickshaw puller, who used to drop the children of the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband to school. It is also pleaded by the respondent/husband that the appellant/wife was very cruel to the mother of the respondent/husband who was an old lady aged about 70 years to the extent that a complaint had to be lodged by the mother-in-law on 19.11.1993. It was further pleaded that the respondent/husband was shunted out by the appellant/wife in the year 1995. Moreover, the appellant/wife purchased a house from the respondent/husband’s funds bearing no B-61, Gali no 18, Jitar Nagar, Delhi wherein she was keeping her paramour Mohd. Ansari. Further, the appellant/wife filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA, however a compromise was arrived on 12.09.2008. The appellant/wife also filed criminal complaints against the respondent/husband. A petition was also filed in this court alleging the fact that the respondent/husband had committed the murder of the son of the parties i.e. Amarpreet Singh. The appellant/wife also made allegations against the respondent/husband of having alliances with other women including the widow of their son and one Gyan Kaur.

4. The case set up by the respondent/husband was that he has made complaints dated 23.11.1993, December 1994, 29.12.1995, 22.06.1998, 22.07.1998, 27.07.1998, 28.07.1998, 29.07.1998, 25.07.2002 and 03.08.2002 against his wife alleging cruelties against him.

5. In her preliminary objections, the appellant/wife stated that the respondent/husband had filed the petition based on false and concocted incidents and that she never had an intimate relationship with the said rickshaw puller. On merits, she submitted that after the solemnization of their marriage, the respondent/husband raised unjustified demands for costly items and asked the appellant/wife for Rs.25,000/-; and that she was turned out of her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that the appellant/wife’s father paid Rs.40,000/- to the respondent/husband. She also contended that her father helped in purchasing the house bearing no. 264, Gagan Vihar, Delhi. It was further submitted that in the year 2002, the respondent/husband left the appellant/wife and her daughters to fend for themselves and took their son Amarpreet Singh to live with him. For the last several years, the respondent/husband is living in Patparganj, Delhi where the appellant/wife has alleged that he has a flourishing business with two factories and he is keeping alliance with women. She denied the claims made by the respondent/husband that she had treated her mother-in-law with cruelty.

6. On 24.11.2010, the following issues were framed by the Family Court;

“1. Whether the respondent has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP

2. Relief.”

7. In support of his case, the respondent/husband examined himself as PW-1 and