The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, a decree of divorce can be granted, and the court can consider the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in a long-drawn legal battle.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - C.M. No. 9683-CII-2019

1. Application is allowed as prayed for.

2. Accordingly, Annexure A-1 is taken on record.

FAO No. M-79-2017

3. By way of filing the present appeal, the appellant-husband is seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, whereby petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act 1955'), for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Amritsar on 06.10.2011. No dowry was given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife. No child was born from this wedlock. Since the inception of the marriage, the behaviour, conduct and attitude of the respondent was not good towards the appellant and his family members. After few days of the marriage, the respondent stated that she has been forcefully married and the appellant was not of her choice. She used to pick up fights on petty matters. She also used to abuse in filthy language. She also threatened the appellant that she will implicate him and his family members in a false and frivolous criminal case. Finally she left the matrimonial home on 29.10.2012. She then lodged a complaint against the appellant and his family members at Police Station Mahila Thana on 14.12.2012. After putting pressure on the appellant and his family members, she received Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.70,000/- vide cheque and Rs.55000/- as cash) and also received articles which were brought by her of her own will. Later on she withdrew the complaint, vide statement dated 16.01.2013. With the intervention of respectables, it was decided between the parties that they will file a petition for mutual divorce. Subsequently, a petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act but later on she withdrew her statement for consent of divorce and petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.02.2013. Since then the respondent is residing in her parental residence. Hence, a petition was filed by him under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.

5. In the Family Court proceedings, the respondent-wife admitted the relationship between the parties but specifically denied each and every allegation levelled against her. She claimed that the appellant had levelled absolutely false and frivolous allegations against her as it was the appellant who wanted to get rid of her. She further alleged that it was the appellant who did not want to live with her. However, she admitted that she hadlodged the complaint and later on withdrew the same. She further admitted that she received Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs.70,000/- vide cheque and Rs.55000/- as cash) and also received articles which were brought by her.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Family Court :-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the grounds on cruelty and desertion?OPP

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

3. Whether the petition is an abuse of process of law? OPR

2. Relief.

7. In order to prove his case, the appellant-husband stepped into witness box as PW1 besides examining P.W.2-Major Kuldeep Singh, Gurkanwar Singh as P.W.3, Jaspal Singh as P.W.4.

8. On the other hand, respondent herself appeared as R.W.1 besides examining Harjit Singh as R.W.2 & Prem Singh as R.W.3.

9. The Family Court below has returned a finding against the appellant-husband and decided issued No. 1 in favour of the respondentwife. It was observed that the appellant and the respondent are educated persons and both are working as Government teachers. The appellant admitted that it was an arrange marriage settled by both the parents. The marriage was performed with the consent of both the parties. Even if the respondent