The judgment emphasizes that dissolution of marriage through 'panchayat' carries no legal value and that the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J —The appellant-husband has filed this appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 9.11.2012 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby a petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for dissolution of his marriage with respondent-wife, has been dismissed.

2. As per case set up by the appellant-husband, the marriage of the parties was solemnized in accordance with Sikh rites on 1.3.1998 at Amritsar and they started residing together as husband and wife at Amritsar but no child was born out of the wedlock. It is averred that the behaviour of respondent was rude right from inception of marriage and she used to pick up quarrels on trifle matters and often used to leave home. She pressurised the petitioner to live at Chandigarh. She even hurled filthy abuses. Whenever she was asked to prepare tea etc. for guests, she used to flatly refuse stating that she was not a servant. It is averred that on one occasion when the petitioner pointed out that there was excess salt in the food prepared by her, she not only hurled abuses but also threw the cooker on the floor and upon being requested not to do so she slapped the petitioner and created a scene in the street. It is asserted that the respondent ultimately left her matrimonial home on 30.6.2005 and did not return back. Subsequently, with the intervention of respectables, the parties resolved to part ways and on 5.10.2006, a Divorce Deed was executed in Panchayat. The petitioner has asserted that the respondent had left the society of petitioner and had not returned back since the last more than 2 years and had thus deserted him. The appellant, thus, prayed for dissolution of his marriage.

3. The respondent-wife contested the petition and denied all the material averments made in the petition. She has taken a stand that in fact the conduct of the petitioner was cruel towards her and she had been subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty right from the day of marriage and that the petitioner and other members of his family were not satisfied with dowry. She has stated that since she was herself working as a teacher in Amritsar, there was no question of her leaving Amritsar and that she never compelled the petitioner to live at Chandigarh. She has taken a stand that she was given beatings in the month of October 2006 and was turned out of her matrimonial home. She has asserted that while throwing her out of matrimonial home, her signatures were taken on blank papers which have been fabricated into the alleged Divorce Deed. The respondent thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. The petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by respondent denying therein the stand taken by respondent while reiterating the averments made in petition. The parties were put to proof on the following issues:

"1. Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged in the petition OPP

2. Whether the application is not maintainable OPR

3. Relief."

5. The appellant-husband himself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and examined PW-2 Satish Kumar Anand, PW-3 Rajesh Kalia, PW-4 Arvinderpal Singh, PW-5 Iqbal Singh Luthra and PW-6 Sarabjit Kaur. The respondentwife, on the other hand herself stepped into witness box as RW-1.

6. The learned lower Court upon considering the evidence on record returned its finding on issue No.1 against the appellant-husband holding therein that the appellant has been unable to establish cruelty on part of the respondent. Issue no.2 was not pressed and thus decided against the respondent. Consequently, the petition for grant of divorce was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.2012, which has been challenged by the appellant-husband by way of filing the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the learned lower Court did not appreciate the evidence in the correct perspective though t