The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraud vitiates everything, and allegations of cruelty must have material particulars to make out a case for grant of divorce.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Cheque for a sum of Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) has been handed over to the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant towards maintenance pendente lite till December, 2009.

FAO No. 69-M of 1998

2. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on a petition filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act).

3. The respondent/husband sought a decree of divorce, by dissolution of marriage, on the pleadings that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in October, 1985 as per Anand Karaj and Sikh rites. Parties to the marriage cohabited and resided together as husband and wife. Out of this wedlock three children were born i.e. two daughters and one son. It was the case set up by the respondent/husband, that immediately after the marriage, the appellant/wife started residing with her parents, most of the time, or in the house of her uncle Palli for extraneous reasons. Wife of the uncle of the appellant was said to be residing in the house of her parents at village Lakhanwal District Kapurthala, whereas he alone was living in village Sansarpur. It was the case set up by the respondent, that several requests were made to the appellant to remain away from Palli, and live and cohabit with the respondent, but to no effect.

4. In March, 1995 the appellant proclaimed that she would not bring up the children at any cost and will live wherever she would like.

5. She further told the respondent that he had no right to say anything to her.

6. This act of the appellant was said to have caused immense degree of humiliation, mental torture and cruelty to the respondent as he had to cut a sorry figure due to constant desertion by the appellant for no fault on his part.

7. The case set up by the respondent was that the appellant deserted him from March, 1995 till November 1995, and it was thereafter that she was rehabilitated with great efforts made by the respondent by convening panchayat, but her behaviour did not change and she again deserted the appellant on one pretext or the other.

8. On 29.7.1996 she told the respondent that she was going to village Sansarpur and wanted to live permanently with her parents and uncle Palli there. Request of the appellant not to do so did not yield any result, in spite of the fact that he had to perform duties of emergent nature being Deputy Superintendent of Police.

9. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellant claimed that as she commands enough influence and would get the respondent dismissed from police service, in case he became a tumbling block in her path of illicit relationship with Palli.

10. It was also the case of the appellant that she took away Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with her. It was also claimed that marriage had come to dead end and there was no hope of it being retrieved. It was also pleaded that the appellant willfully and intentionally neglected the respondent.

11. The appellant was proceeded against exparte. In support of the petition the appellant besides examining himself examined Sawinder Singh PW 1 and placed on record copies of documents Ex.P.1 to P.30.

12. On the pleadings and evidence referred to above learned Additional District Judge granted a decree of divorce by recording as under :-

"I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the evidence carefully.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mohinder Singh, petitioner on oath has deposed about all the averments contained in the petition and his testimony is supported by Sawinder Singh, PW 1 and the case is proved. I find merit in his submission. The testimony of Mohinder Singh, Petition PW 2, is corroborated by Sawinder Singh PW 1 and all facts of the case and the evidence being ex-parte has to be believed. By ocular and documentary evidence which is unrebutted, t