JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J.

Appellant-husband (Ranbir Singh) has come up in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Sonepat, whereby the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ' the 1955 Act ') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant-Ranbir Singh was solemnized with respondent-Renu on 21.02.2003 at Modi Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, a son and a daughter were born.

3. It transpires that on account of matrimonial issues, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, seeking divorce from the respondent. The pleaded case of the appellant-husband in the divorce petition was that the respondent-wife is a quarrelsome lady and she was not happy with this marriage as she had studied upto 12th standard, whereas the appellant-husband was only 8th Class pass. It was stated that the difference of education between the parties was a bone of contention and respondent always remained indifferent. It was further pleaded that the appellant was an employee in a factory and was earning about Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- p.m. and said income was never considered sufficient by the respondent and remained un-satisfied with the same. Respondent was also not satisfied with the upbringing of the children. It was categorically stated that the respondent wanted to break the relationship but the children were the hindrance and therefore, she killed both the children and she was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment dated 30.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

3.1 It was also stated that the respondent threatened the appellant a number of times to kill him but she did not find a chance and therefore, the appellant was subjected to great mental tension and agony.

3.2 In this backdrop, the divorce petition was filed by appellant.

4. On the other hand, the respondent contested the afore-said divorce petition, inter alia, on the plea that it is the appellant who is quarrelsome and greedy by nature. It was stated that it is the appellant who treated the respondent with cruelty and he was also addicted to liquor. It was further stated that the respondent had not killed her children and a false case has been registered against her. It was also stated that an appeal against the judgment of conviction was pending.

4.1 With the afore-said submissions, the respondent sought dismissal of the divorce petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground mentioned in the petition ? OPP

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

3. Relief."

6. In order to prove his case, the appellant appeared as PW-1 and examined another witness namely, Smt. Anju as PW-2. The appellant submitted a copy of judgment of conviction of respondent in evidence as Ex. PW1/B.

7. On the other hand, the respondent herself appeared as RW-1.

8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence available on the record, the learned District Judge, Family Court, Sonepat vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.07.2013, dismissed the divorce petition.

9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the District Judge, Family Court, Sonepat recorded the following findings, while dismissing the divorce petition:-

"11. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove the ground of cruelty. A perusal of the divorce petition goes to show that allegations of cruelty made therein are quite vague and indefinite. No specific