The judgment establishes the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on adultery and cruelty, and the denial of permanent alimony in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - The appellant, Sangeeta Sekhri has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2008 passed by Family Court, Ambala whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 08.05.1989 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Ambala City. The parties lived together as husband and wife. However, no child was born out of their wedlock. From the day one, the behaviour of appellant-wife was extremely rude and aggressive. She used to abuse, insult and humiliate the respondent-husband and his family members. She used to make taunts on account of the financial position of the respondenthusband and did not stop humiliating him in front of his friends and family members. The appellant-wife was suffering from some mental disorder to which the respondent-husband got her treated from a Psychiatrist. Since no issue was born even after ten years of marriage, appellant-wife started calling the petitioner as Namard (impotent), due to which the respondent-husband became mentally sick. The appellant-wife developed intimacy with Sanjeev Pattar (impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the petition), who was posted as Assistant Superintendent Jail, Central Jail, Ambala and was residing in the same locality. The respondent-husband left his house on 22.05.2006 and wrote many letters to Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police etc. to which inquiry was conducted by CIA Staff, Ambala alongwith the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala. During the inquiry, it came out that appellant-wife and Sanjeev Pattarrespondent No.2 used to talk to each other on mobile phones as well as on the official phone, which indicated that appellant-wife was guilty of treating the respondent-husband with cruelty and was living in adultery with Sanjeev Pattar-respondent No.2.

3. On notice of the petition, the appellant-wife appeared and filed her written statement denying the allegations of cruelty and adultery. Respondent No.2 also filed his written statement denying the allegations of adultery. Separate replications to the written statements were filed by the respondent-husband.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 was living in adultery with respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the respondent No. 1 has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP.

3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce, as prayed for? OPP.

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

5. Relief.

5. The respondent-husband examined seven witnesses namely Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW1), S.D.Khokar (PW2), M.K.Maini (PW3), Rajbir Singh (PW4), Balwinder Singh (PW5), himself as PW6 and Mohammad Gulab (PW7). He also produced documentary evidence. The appellant-wife stepped into the witness box as RW1 and respondent No. 2 did not step into the witness box. Both did not lead any other evidence.

6. With regard to adultery and cruelty, the respondent-husband examined PW4-Rajbir Singh who was his friend for the last 21 years. He had gone to the house of the respondent-husband and when he reached the bedroom of the respondent-husband, he saw Sangeeta-appellant and another person in the nude condition. He tried to catch that person but he fled on the motor cycle. He immediately called the respondent-husband and on his asking, PW4-Rajbir Singh disclosed that person as Sanjeev Pattar. PW4-Rajbir Singh also deposed that the respondent-husband left his home and that appellant-wife used to pick up fight at the shop. Thereafter, PW4-Rajbir Singh was called to the Municipal Committee by respondent No.2, his brother and brother-in-law and he was told that illicit relations between respondent No.1 (appellant-wife) and respondent No. 2 had been formed with the consent