The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence of mental cruelty, including filing false complaints and leading an adulterous life, can justify the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - The instant appeal filed by the appellant-wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), has been allowed and the marriage between the parties stood dissolved by a decree of divorce.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Act, for grant of decree of divorce, by averring therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.7.2007 at Kalka as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The respondent-husband was having a Karyana shop at Rajipur and was residing in his father's house, whereas the father of the respondent-husband was doing service at Kiratpur Sahib. Respondent-husband's mother would stay sometime with the respondent and sometime with his father. The elder brother and sister-in-law of the respondent were living separately in Mahadev Colony at Surajpur. The respondent-husband was taunted by the appellant-wife that he was younger to her in age and was an illiterate. The appellant-wife used to go to her parental house without informing the respondent-husband. She had left the matrimonial home on 4.12.2007 and when respondent-husband's parental uncle went to bring the appellant back, she had put a condition that she would only come back, if the mother of the husband would go to his father's place at Kiratpur Sahib and that the house of the respondent-husband is transferred in her name. The appellant-wife had filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent-husband, his parents, brother and sister-in-law, as a result whereof FIR No. 4 dated 2.1.2008 under Sections 323, 504, 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Pinjore. However, on investigation, brother and sister-in-law of the respondent-husband were found innocent.

3. During the trial of the said case, appellant-wife filed an application stating therein that she had illicit relations with one Satya Pal Singh Chauhan (who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the divorce petition) for the last five years. Vide order dated 20.12.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka, the respondent-husband and his parents were acquitted of the charges framed against them, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that any cruelty had been caused to the appellant-wife, by the respondent-husband or his parents on the allegations of bringing less dowry.

4. The appellant-wife had filed her written statement admitting the factum of the parties being husband and wife. It was stated that the respondent-husband and his parents had started harassing and taunting the appellant for having brought less dowry. Apart from having given articles and gifts on the occasions of festivals, the appellant-wife had also brought an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and gave the same to the respondent-husband. It was further alleged that the respondent-husband had raised a demand of a Maruti Car, but when the appellant refused to accede to the said demand, on 8.11.2007, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law caught hold of her and dragged her in the house. A Panchayat was convened on 18.11.2007, but the respondent-husband and his family members did not accede to the proposal of the Panchayat. As regards Satya Pal Singh Chauhan (respondent No. 2 in the divorce petition), it was stated that he had been engaged as a counsel by the appellant-wife, but later on he returned the brief and refused to represent her before the Court. There was a collusion between respondent-husband and said Satya Pal Singh Chauhan. She had, in fact, alleged molestation at the hands of Satya Pal Singh Chauhan and had submitted a complaint against him to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula.

5. Respondent No. 2 also filed his written statement contending