1. By way of this appeal, appellant-Rajni Goyal assailed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, vide which H.M.A. case No. 27 dated 01.03.2011 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act of 1955') by her husband Amit Kumar- petitioner was allowed and a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage was passed.

2. The facts which need elaboration are as under:-

Appellant Rajni Goyal was married to respondent Amit Kumar on 12.06.2009 at Village Chanarthal, District Bathinda as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple resided together at Bathinda for a short period but no child was born out of the wedlock.

It was averred by Amit Kumar that during the period Rajni Goyal stayed at the matrimonial home, she used to receive telephonic calls from her paramour namely, Manpreet Singh (respondent no.2). She lived in adultery and her paramour threatened him of dire consequences which caused him grave mental agony. Pleading about the general behaviour of Rajni Goyal, Amit Kumar alleged that she was very harsh and rude towards him; she would create scene over trivial matters and wanted to lead a aristocratic life whereas he had limited source of income; she refused to cook food or prepare tea for him, his family members and also when some friend/relative visited their house, rather in their presence she abused and humiliated him; she also often threatened to commit suicide and get his entire family implicated in a false criminal case in connivance with her paramour. Pleading that he had been subjected to cruelty by Rajni Goyal and she had been guilty of adultery Amit Kumar prayed for a decree of divorce.

3. The petition was contested by appellant Rajni Goyal. In the written statement filed by her, she pleaded that her husband Amit Kumar had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed true and material facts. According to her, she and Amit Kumar had a love affair prior to the marriage. When their parents came to know about their intimacy, they arranged their marriage and her parents spent more than ` 3 Lacs as per demand of Amit Kumar and his family members. Amit Kumar and his family were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and soon after marriage they started raising demand for additional dowry. They started harassing and maltreating her on one pretext or the other. She was beaten up and turned out of the matrimonial home. In that regard, even an application was given by her to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda.

As regards respondent no.2 Manpreet Singh, Rajni Goyal alleged that a false story had been concocted by her husband Amit Kumar of her relationship with said Manpreet Singh in order to make a ground for divorce. Manpreet Singh was a friend of Amit Kumar and in collusion with the police Amit Kumar had prepared some false documents. Denying that she had ever admitted any kind of relationship with Manpreet Singh before any person or authority and controverting all other allegations levelled by Amit Kumar, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Respondent no.2 Manpreet Singh despite service did not appear to contest the petition.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the respondent no.1 was having adulterous relations with respondent no.2? OPP.

(2) Whether respondent no.1 treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.

(3) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi & cause of action to file this petition? OPR.

(4) Relief.

5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions.

Considering the evidence available and the submissions made, learned trial Court accepted the allegation of Amit Kumar that appellant Rajni Goyal was living in adultery with Manpreet Singh (respondent no.2) and had also treated him with cruelty and allowed the petition for divorce filed by Amit Kumar. The marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of