The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of desertion, cruelty, and adultery under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

NAVITA SINGH, J.

The trial Court record has been received. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard.

This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the petition filed by respondent No. 1 (husband) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act – for short) was allowed. The appellant – wife came up in appeal assailing the judgment on the ground that respondent No. 1 had deserted her and even neglected to maintain her. The trial Court did not properly apply its mind and gave undue weightage to the evidence led by respondent No. 1.

The petition was brought by respondent No. 1 stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Khanpur, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 30.04.2006 and one female and one male child were born from the wedlock. Respondent No. 1 was a soldier in the Boarder Security Force and mostly remained posted at non-family stations. He used to come home on annual leave. In his absence, the appellant developed illicit relations with Sahab Singh – respondent No. 2 (impleaded by the appellant as proforma respondent) and she started living with him. When respondent No. 1 came home on leave in January, 2010, he came to know about the adulterous relations of his wife with said Sahab Singh. The parents of respondent No. 1 and he himself tried to persuade the appellant to give up her relationship with Sahab Singh and come back to the matrimonial home. However, she did not listen and rather moved a false complaint against respondent No. 1 and his family members in police station at Thanesar. During investigation, the appellant made a statement that she did not want to live with her husband and a compromise was arrived at between the parties with the intervention of close relatives. The appellant stated that she was capable of making her own decisions and did not want to live with her husband and his family. Though the parents of the appellant were extremely ashamed of the conduct of their daughter yet to save the family from any kind of embarrassment, the parents of the appellant executed two separate affidavits in favour of respondent No. 1 stating that their daughter had left the matrimonial home out of her own volition and that their son-in-law, i.e. present respondent No. 1, was not at fault. Due to execution of such affidavits by her parents, the appellant was infuriated and she filed a suit for declaration against her father claiming her share in the property. During the investigation of the criminal case, the appellant hurled filthy abuses on her husband and his family due to which respondent No. 1 suffered great mental agony. He was even physically beaten by the appellant.

It was further pleaded in the petition that the appellant had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. – for short) where she filed an application for interim maintenance, which was dismissed on 02.11.2010 holding that she was not entitled to any such relief. Respondent No. 1 sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The appellant contested the case of her husband on the ground that he had set up a false case. She denied all the allegations of adultery and cruelty as also desertion made against her. It was denied that she had subjected respondent No. 1 and his family to any kind of mental agony or humiliation. She, inter alia, pleaded that she was ready to live with her husband.

The matter was heard ex parte against Sahab Singh – respondent No. 2.

The trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether respondent (now appellant) developed sexual relations with one Sahab Singh and the petitioner (now respondent No. 1) was harassed, humiliated, insulted and subjected to cruelty by the respondent (now appellant) and the petitioner (now respondent No. 1) is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? OPP

2. Whethe