The judgment established that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a valid ground for granting a divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, despite it not being explicitly mentioned in the Act.

VIJENDER JAIN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the husband, respondent being the wife. The learned single Judge set aside the finding of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana where the appellant Gurnam Singh filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a Decree of Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . The learned Additional District Judge on the pleading of the parties, framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner after solemnization of marriage with cruelty? OPA

2. Whether the Respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the present petition ? OPA

3. Relief

.

2 Both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions. The instances of cruelty, which find mention in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, were that since the birth of the male child in 1978, the respondent started ignoring him by remaining absent for long time from his company. She also started scolding and misbehaving with him and his family members on small matters and in anger, she used to threaten him to involve him and his family members in false cases. In support of his allegations the appellant produced five witnesses, including himself as P.W. 5, P.W. 2 Balwant Singh, P.W. 3 Sukhdev Singh. The testimony of these witnesses was to the effect that respondent did not visit the appellant and the appellant was upset as he was being harassed by his wife, whereas P.W. 3 Sukhdev Singh deposed that he was involved in re-conciliation efforts between the parties. P.W. 4 Pritam Singh deposed that he had attended the marriage of the parties and was also involved in re-conciliation effort but the respondent and her father started abusing him. He also deposed that the attitude and behaviour of the respondent was cruel towards the appellant and his other family members. The respondent was abusing and quarrelsome. P.W. 5 is the appellant Gurnam Singh who deposed that the respondent threatened to immolate herself and she tried to poison him in the milk. The evidence in rebuttal was led by the respondent R.W. 1 Ujjagar Singh who deposed that he knows the parties and they have strained relations and are living separately and efforts for re-conciliation have not been successful. Even the father of the respondent appeared in witness box as RW-3 and he also deposed that his daughter separated in 1984 from the appellant at Village Jagera. In his entire statement, he had not rebutted any allegation stated by the appellant against the respondent on the point of cruelty. From the scrutiny of the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge found that neither the respondent nor any of her witnesses tried to rebut the allegations of the appellant regarding cruelty and that the behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant and his family members was insulting even on trifling matters. The testimony also went un-rebutted with regard to the attempt to immolate herself and with regard to poisoning the appellant in the milk. In spite of the overwhelming evidence on record, the learned single Judge without discussing anything has set aside the decree of divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing before us in support of his contention states that an irretrievable breaking down of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Surender Kumar V/s. Smt. Seema, LPA No. 2931 of 2001, decided on 25-4-2006. We are conscious of the fact that irretrievable breaking down of marriage is not a ground for grant of divorce but can the Court shut its eyes to the ground realities? Admittedly, the case of the parties is that since 1984 t