The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 13(l)(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to grant dissolution of marriage based on a spouse's HIV positive status.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has challenged the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') on 28.11.2019, whereby the petition, as preferred by the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for seeking dissolution of their marriage, has been allowed.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the factual matrix, as set-forth by the respondent (as petitioner in divorce petition), is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.02.2016 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Rohtak. After their marriage, the behaviour of the appellant (respondent in the divorce-petition) towards him and his family members was abnormal and she subjected him to cruelty. She also failed to perform her marital obligations and under the influence of her family members, she made his life hell. She used to leave her matrimonial home and to go to her parental home without his consent. The appellant and her family members also concealed the fact regarding her (appellant) being HIV positive and he came to know about the same only at the time of tests conducted after the pregnancy of the appellant. He had every apprehension he might contact the above-said disease from the appellant. In May 2016, the appellant left her matrimonial home while taking away all her belongings and withdrew from his company.

3. In her written-reply, the appellant contested the claim of the respondent by asserting that the respondent was a drug addict and he used to give her beatings. He and his family members harassed her for demand of dowry. When her father expressed his inability to fulfil the demand of the respondent and his family members for a Xylo Car, she, alongwith her father, was forced to leave her matrimonial home. She was not HIV positive before her marriage and she came to know about this fact only while undergoing the tests during her pregnancy. In fact, the sisters of the respondent were medical students and they used to inject some medicine to her with a used syringe on the pretext of its helping her to gain weight which led to her getting positive for HIV.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPR

4. Relief"

5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after appraisal of the evidence, as adduced by both the parties on the record in support of their respective contentions, learned Trial Court answered issue no.l in favour of the respondent. Issues no.2 and 3 were disposed of as having not been pressed during the course of arguments. Resultantly, the divorce petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was ordered to have stood dissolved.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant in the instant appeal and have also perused the file.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant came to know about her being HIV positive only at the time of the tests conducted during her pregnancy and in fact, she did not suffer from this disease at the time of her marriage and rather, she contacted the same because of the use of the same syringe thrice a day by the sisters of the respondent, who were medical students, so as to help her to gain weight during her pregnancy and moreover, the appellant was responding to the treatment being given to her for the said disease and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree were liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Trial Court has observed in para no.8 of the judgment under challenge t