The judgment emphasizes the duty to secure the future of the child in cases of marital disputes and highlights the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral). - Challenge in the present appeal is the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, whereby the divocre petition filed by the appellant-wife was dismissed.

2. Appellant-Ekta had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( for short 'the Act') on 11.03.2015. She stated that her marriage was solemnized with Vikas Karadwal on 30.03.2011 as per Hindu rites; she gave birth to a son, namely Vibhor, on 22.05.2012. Soon after the marriage, behaviour of the husband and his family members was not cordial with the petitioner and they started demanding Rs.10 lacs from her family members for repayment of a loan. The parents of the petitioner gave Rs.5 lacs in the presence of one Dinesh Kumar, brother of the petitioner, Jagdish maternal uncle of the petitioner, Lokeshwar and uncle Deewan Chand and other respectables on 01.11.2011. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 25.12.2011 when she was pregnant of two months. The husband instead of rehabilitating with his wife threatened her that he would not allow her to enter to her matrimonial home. The efforts of the Panchayat also remained futile.

1. FIR No.91, dated 06.09.2013 registered under Sections 406/498-A of IPC was registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana against the respondent.

2. Appellant-Ekta filed a complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, on 22.08.2013, which was pending in the Court at Ludhiana.

3. Appellant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at Ludhian Courts and she was awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- vide order dated 26.09.2013.

The Family Court, Ludhiana framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

3. Relief."

3. The appellant while leading evidence with regard to the issues PW1 Dinesh Kargwal, PW2 Deewan Chand and she herself stepped into the witness box as PW3 and closed her evidence. The respondent, on the other hand, himself stepped into the witness box as RW1, examined RW2 Manjit Kumar and RW3 Pritpal Singh and closed his evidence.

4. After going through the evidence, the Family Court has given the findings on issue no.1 that no cruelty and desertion was made out against the respondent-husband.

5. In FIR No.91, dated 06.09.2013, challan was presented as per copy Ex.P3 before the concerned Court for trial of the respondent but the same case has not been decided. Copy of the Civil Suit No.980 of 2015 is Ex.P4, which has been filed by the appellant-wife against the respondent and his family members.

6. Respondent-husband appeared as RW1 and had referred to Ex. R-1, a complaint made by the father of appellant-Ekta to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and the same was consigned after recording the statement Ex.R-2 as per order passed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, Ex.R3.

7. The petition filed under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 22.08.2013 against the mother of the respondent, Veena Rani, his sister Manju, her husband Om Parkash and his sister Happy was pending and in this application, and interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- was awarded vide order dated 18.04.2014.

8. Thereafter, in an application filed under Section 24 of the Act, maintenance of Rs.6,000/- was awarded to the appellant vide order dated 21.09.2016.

9. The respondent-husband had filed an application for permission to meet her son Vibhor on 14.09.2018 and as per the order dated 14.09.2018, the appellant was directed to bring her son Vibhor on the next date of hearing on 08.10.2018 but the child was not brought on that date and even on the next date of hearing the child was not brought in the Court.

10. In