The court established the irreparable breakdown of the marriage, the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the differences between divorce and judicial separation. The court emphasized the need to consider the overall picture of the case and applied the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities in matrimonial matters.

JUDGMENT

1. MAT. APP. (F.C.) 213/2018 has been filed by the appellant-husband Vinay Khurana (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") challenging the judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed by the Family Court, Shahdara District, wherein the Family Court has granted a relief of Judicial Separation, instead of the relief of divorce-as had been sought by the appellant.

2. On the other hand, MAT. APP. (F.C.) 231/2018 has been filed by the respondent-wife - Shweta Khurana (hereinafter referred to as "respondent") challenging the findings returned by the Family Court, Shahdara District against the respondent in the said judgment.

3. The admitted facts are as under:

(a) The marriage of the parties took place on 14.04.2006 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. One girl child was born out of the wedlock on 23.09.2007, who is in the custody of the respondent.

(b) The appellant filed the petition for divorce on 13.07.2012, on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(c) The parties have been staying separately since 29.05.2009. There are conflicting statements placed before us as to the reasons why the appellant and the respondent have been staying separately since 29.05.2009. The appellant has levelled various allegations against the respondent, for ignoring him and his family members; giving importance to her own family while avoiding to perform her matrimonial obligations; excessively talking on the phone with her family members at odd hours of the night; showing a non-cooperative and disrespectful attitude towards the appellant and his parents. The appellant further alleged that the respondent constantly threatened him and his family members to desert them, and implicate them in false cases, amongst others.

(d) The respondent in her written statement, as well as her appeal, has denied all the allegations and rather blamed the appellant for committing physical and mental cruelty on the respondent for bringing less dowry. The respondent has stated that it was the appellant, who had thrown her out of the matrimonial house on 29.05.2009, after giving her beatings, and thereafter, he never made any efforts to bring her back. The respondent has stated that she has always been ready and willing to go back to the house of the appellant, and it is the appellant who is spoiling their matrimonial life.

(e) On 19.08.13 the Family Court granted Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent and the minor child as an interim maintenance.

4. On 03.08.2013, the Family Court framed the following issues:

(a) Whether the respondent has, after solemnization of marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP;

(b) Relief.

5. In order to prove the case, the appellant has examined himself as PW-2, and his father Shri Om Prakash Khurana as PW-5. The appellant also examined Shri Khairati Lal, (Uncle of the appellant) as PW-1, Shri Rakesh Bawa, (Brother-in-law of the appellant) as PW-3, Shri Anurag Pahuja, (close friend of the appellant) as PW-4, and Smt. Mamta Mehra, (close friend of the appellant) as PW-6 - who had contacted respondent and had gone to her house on different occasions to make her understand and bring her back to the matrimonial home. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself as RW-1 and her brother Lucky, as RW-2.

6. After discussing the entire evidence on record, the Family Court in the impugned judgment has held as under:

"However, from the evidence led it is clear that that it was the respondent who left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reasons. In fact, she wanted to live with the petitioner in a separate house but not in the joint family. She always wanted the petitioner to separate himself from his parents and after taking share in the joint family, purchase separate property. Petitioner always wanted to live with the respondent but it was also not possible for him to ignore his parents. Petitioner had made various efforts for the compromise and to bring her back the respondent to this house but the ad