The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mental cruelty, as applied to the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, J.

1. The appellant-wife has come up in appeal before this Court, seeking setting aside of judgment dated 03.08.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, whereby the petition filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act 1955’) for dissolution of marriage between the parties by decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant-wife was solemnized on 06.11.2011 with the respondent-husband. Out of this wedlock, one son was born on 16.10.2012 at Rohtak, who is currently residing with the appellant at Jhajjar. In the petition, it was alleged by the respondent-husband that her wife has treated him with cruelty and deserted him. She used to pick up quarrels on petty matters and used to throw tantrums, she was disrespectful towards elders and the parents of the respondent-husband. She used to abuse the respondent-husband and threaten to commit suicide. It was alleged that on the first night of the marriage, the wife told him that she did not wish to marry him and used to chat with a person namely Rohil Kumar on the social media. Even after the birth of their child, the appellant-wife rebuked the respondent-husband in the presence of one Vijay son of Surajmal. On 28.11.2012, the brother of the appellant-wife visited Mishri Devi Hospital, where the respondent-husband was working on part time basis and in the presence of Shri Vijay Kumar son of Surajmal, the appellant-wife threatened the respondent-husband that he should separate from his parents. In November, 2013, the appellant-wife went to visit her parental home, but refused to return despite the efforts made by the respondent-husband, who had visited her at her parental house along with Mohit son of Anand Prakash.

3. On 25.07.2014 the respondent-husband joined at Civil Hospital, Jhajjar on contract basis under District Early Intervention Centre Scheme where the appellant-wife and her parents forced him to get his ration card transferred to Jhajjar. In the year 2014, the appellant-wife started working as a teacher in a senior secondary school and she used to remain away from home for very long hours and used to return home very late.

4. On 05.06.2015, the appellant-wife left the house of the respondent-husband along with the dowry articles and has deserted him. There are allegations of incidents dated 10.07.2015 and 11.07.2015 when the appellant-wife visited Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, where the respondent-husband was working and created ruckus in the presence of a peon namely Mukesh. On 29.08.2015 the appellant along with her brothers came to Rohtak at the house of the respondent-husband. She kept sitting in the car outside, whereas her brothers caused injuries to the parents and sister of the respondent-husband. A written complaint was given at police station Civil Lines, Rohtak by the father of the respondent-husband and all the three injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Rohtak. The appellant-wife requested the respondent-husband not to pursue the matter and that a Panchayat shall be convened, but the appellant-wife denied to get the matter considered before the Panchayat. It was thus, alleged that considering the specific incidents alleged by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife, immense cruelty has been caused to the respondent-husband and his family.

5. Notice of the petition was issued to the appellant-wife, who filed her written statement and on merits, she admitted the marriage between the parties and that a son has been born from their wedlock. It was, however, averred that she and her son have been intentionally and willfully neglected and deserted by the respondent-husband. The allegations of bad behaviour of the appellant-wife that she used to abuse the respondent-husband or was disrespectful towards the elders and parents of the respondent-husband, were denied. It was also denied that any such de