The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for granting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J. - The appellant-wife has come up in appeal before this Court seeking setting aside of judgment dated 19.3.2018 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Barnala, whereby petition filed by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act'), for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent herein by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.The appellant sought divorce primarily on grounds of cruelty and desertion on part of the respondent.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 18.11.1998 in the area of Barnala as per Sikh rites and rituals. After their marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife and cohabited in district Ludhiana in their matrimonial home. Out of this wedlock, the appellant-wife gave birth to two sons, namely, Akash Deep Singh on 15.1.2002 and Harjot Singh on 30.05.2005, both of whom are residing with the respondent-husband. It is claimed that at the time of marriage, the appellant spent Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) on the marriage and sufficient dowry and gifts were given to the respondent and his parents. It is the case of the appellant-wife that initially the respondent was a good husband but after some years of marriage he fell into bad company and became winebibber and used to beat the appellant without any rhyme and reason and also did not provide any maintenance and basic amenities of life to her. As a result, the appellant had no alternative but to go to her parental house; and as she had no source of income, she eventually left for Cyprus in the year 2011 to make her living. It is further pleaded that in the year 2013 the appellant visited India and also sent a message to the respondent to meet, but the respondent refused to visit the appellant and rather threatened that his relations with the appellant were at an end and if she tried to enter the matrimonial home, then she will be done to death. It is accordingly, pleaded that the respondent willfully and without reasonable cause withdrew himself from the society of the appellant and she was left with no choice but to file the petition under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court concerned in the year 2017.

3. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement by taking legal objection that the appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Act was not maintainable as it was filed through her mother who is her power of attorney holder.

4. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the Court at Barnala had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try or decide the petition under Section 13 of the Act as the appellant/petitioner was now residing in Cyprus, and prior to that had left for Cyprus from the village Hans Kaur, Tehsil Jagraon and both the places are not falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Barnala.

5. On merits, the respondent contested the petition by stating that the appellant had not approached the Family Court with clean hands and had concealed material and true facts. It was the respondent's case that it was he only who had sent the appellant to Cyprus by bearing all the expenses of visa etc. on the understanding between the parties that upon reaching Cyprus, the appellant would arrange visa for the respondent also and would sponsor him. However, contrary to this settlement, the appellant after reaching Cyprus never arranged any visa for the respondent. In fact, after earning money there she purchased one big bungalow in the area of Barnala and was now living a luxurious life, but had never sent any money to the respondent or their children. It was further pleaded that the appellant has been sending all her money to her parents and therefore the parents of the appellant-wife had now turned greedy and instigated the appellant-wife to file the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 against the respondent-husband.

6. The respondent stated