JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The appellant, Shobha Kalra has come up in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby her petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955) has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 26.04.2009 at Derawal Bhawan, Gurgaon, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, a daughter namely Ridhima was born on 31.03.2010.

3. The petitioner-appellant was working in Orion Hundai Work Shop, Gurgaon. On 13.05.2013, the respondent reached at the office of the petitioner and in the presence of staff members, hurled abuses, threatened with dire consequences and the matter was reported to the Police Civil Line, Gurgaon.

4. On 04.01.2015, again the respondent quarreled with the petitioner-appellant and her family members and the matter was reported to the police vide rapat dated 04.01.2015.

5. Thereafter, on 22.01.2015 on complaint of respondent, the Women Cell, Gurgaon, called her and her family members, where the respondent hurled abuses and slapped her. Due to cruel behaviour of the respondent, the parties have been residing separately since 10.06.2010 and no co-habitation had taken place between them.

6. One petition under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 was filed and due to harassment of the respondent, the petitioner-appellant had withdrawn her consent. In this backdrop, divorce petition was filed.

7. On notice of the divorce petition, written statement was filed by the respondent denying all the allegations and it was asserted that on 03.12.2011, a petition under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 was filed before the Family Court, Gurgaon, after recording joint statement of first motion, the petitioner-appellant never turned to the house of the respondent to see her child; rather she pressurized him in connivance with unknown person including father and Jija to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to her and the same were paid. The petitioner intentionally did not give her consent in the second motion statement just to harass him and his family members.

Following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the petitioner has been treated with cruelty at the hands of the respondent, if so, its effect? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of desertion as alleged? OPP

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

4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by her own act and conduct? OPR

5. Whether the petitioner has not come with clean hands and concealed true and material facts from the court? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

7. Relief.

8. The petitioner besides examining herself as PW4, also examined Head Constable Naresh Kumar as PW1, Head Constable Ajit as PW2, Darshan Grover, her father as PW3 and thereafter evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed vide statement dated 26.04.2016.

9. The respondent besides examining himself as RW1, also examined Subhash Sardana as RW2 and thereafter evidence of the respondent was closed vide court order dated 13.10.2017.

10. On issue No. 1, the Family Court observed that the petitioner while appearing as PW4 had deposed during her cross-examination that she never went to the house of the respondent after 22.06.2010 to see her child namely Ridhima. She did not file any petition to seek custody of the child. She was not willing to keep her daughter with her. She further deposed that her husband had taken her for outing once or twice during her stay at in- laws house, she lived in Orissa with her husband for about two months.

11. The Family Court had also examined rapat (Ex.PW1/A) which was made on the basis of report made on 04.01.2015. As per the said rapat, no cognizable offence was found to have been co