In matrimonial disputes, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish claims of cruelty and adultery by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(Kuldeep Mathur, J.)

1. The present Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- wife- Neetu against the judgment and decree dated 16^th December 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No.82/2019 whereby the petition preferred by the respondent no.1- husband- Vinod Kumar under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) for dissolution of marriage was allowed and a decree of divorce between the parties was passed.

2. Succinctly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar filed a divorce petition before the learned Family Court, Sirohi, alleging inter alia that the marriage of the appellant- wife and the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 02^nd December 2009 at Village Malwada, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore and two sons namely Sahil and Kunal were born out of their wedlock. Upto two years of their marriage, they continued their conjugal relations peacefully however, in the month of November/ December of 2011, the respondent no.1 discovered the extra- marital affair of his wife- Neetu through her phone and her personal diary. For the sake of their marriage, upon being requested by the family members of Neetu and for the welfare of his infant son Sahil, he forgave the appellant- wife and came with her to live with his parents at Kalandri. Thereafter, in the year 2018, Govind (A.W.2)- brother of respondent no.1 saw the appellant- Neetu in a compromising position with one Praveen Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar (respondent no.2) and disclosed the incident to his family, whereupon the appellant- Neetu threatened her in-laws of dire consequences if they would interrupt her illicit relations.

3. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant- Neetu and after suffering mental cruelty for so long, the respondent no.1 went to his in-laws for advice but to his utter dismay, instead of reprimanding their daughter- Neetu of her miscreant and unfaithful behavior, they threatened the respondent no.1 of lodging a false case against him and ruining his life. Thereafter, the appellant- Neetu along with her son- Kunal moved to live with her parents on 11^th July 2018, since when the appellant- Neetu and her husband- respondent no.1 started living separately. It was further averred that the appellant- Neetu threatened the respondent no.1 that she would go and start living with respondent no.2 who being a divorcee was ready and willing to accept her. Thus, being aggrieved by the cruelty and adultery committed by his wife- Neetu, respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar prayed for a decree of divorce to be granted in his favor.

4. Denying the allegations levelled in the petition preferred by respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar, the appellant- Neetu filed a reply wherein she stated that she had no prior acquaintance with respondent no.2, who is the divorced cousin of respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 had falsely lodged a case against her in order to defame her mainly because he had prior animosity with respondent no.2 and they often had matrimonial discords as the respondent no.1 was unable to maintain her and her children. He used to mistrust her and hurl imputations upon her character whenever she used to talk on phone with her family. It was further alleged that her in-laws used to mistreat her, beat her, behave cruelly with her and also hurled abuses to her on numerous occasions on account of not bringing enough dowry articles. Appellant- Neetu in her reply, thus alleged that the respondent no.1 with an intention to marry someone else, ousted her and her son Kunal out of her matrimonial home and thus implored the Family Court to dismiss the divorce petition preferred by her husband- Vinod Kumar.

5. The learned Family Court after considering the averments made in the petition on behalf of the respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar and the reply filed on behalf of the appellant- Neetu and after hearing the preliminary arguments advanced by the learned co