Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This is a Bunch of six Appeals, in which, the parties are common and they are contesting almost for a common issue arising out of the matrimony and offshoots of the proceedings pertaining to the maintenance, guardianship, dissolution of marriage, permanent alimony etc. Since, the factual backdrop is common, this Court feels that this common judgment would be deciding the controversy and would be applicable in all the appeals, so far it relates to different controversies and for relief’s in different statutes.

2. Brief facts and the pleadings between the parties as involved in each appeal is being discussed separately.

1. First Appeal No. 29 of 2016

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the validity of the order dated 5th March, 2016, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court in Original Suit No. 350 of 2014, whereby his petition under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and Section 6 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as filed by Manu Goyal has been dismissed and the custody of the minor child has been given to the respondent wife.

3. Following facts are not in controversy that the marriage between the parties to the appeal was solemnized on 23rd November, 2008, at Panipat. Out of the wedlock, a son named Paras was born on 24th August, 2009. According to the appellant, at the time of the marriage, and, thereafter, all love and affection were showered upon the respondent wife, the appellant and his family members, but as per the appellant, the respondent wife was suffering from the vices of superiority complex syndrome. On account of the aforesaid reason, she often used to misbehave and insult the appellant in the presence of relatives and friends and even used the abusive languages, which are not commonly used in the relationship of husband and wife, being not a language recognized in common parlance. When the respondent got the knowledge that she has conceived and is pregnant, she continued to live at Panipat just to ensure that the delivery of the child takes place at Panipat itself.

4. But, all of a sudden, for the reasons best known, she in April, 2009, during the pregnancy, when pregnancy was only of five months old, she left for Kanpur, i.e. her parental home and, the reason which was constituted for her movement to Kanpur was, that living at Panipat just to give birth to the child would not be possible for her. The atrocities of the respondent was so intense that she never even cared for the wellbeing of the small child who was hardly two months of age after his birth on 23rd November, 2008. Taking the risk of traveling during the pregnancy of five months was harmful for the mother as well as the child in the womb.

5. The respondent was so much career oriented that she even did not care for well being of the child and she ventured out to build her career. When Paras was hardly of four months of age, i.e. age when the maximum care is required by the child from his mother.

6. Another cause for concern as projected by the appellant was that the behavioral aspect of the respondent was not acceptable by the family, because she used to talk to unknown persons on mobile for hours together. On being requested to mend her ways, she used to threaten the appellant and his family member of dire consequences by committing suicide and roping them in false case. A threat of suicide will, in itself, amount to be a cruelty, because the person to whom such threats are extended always remains under a physiological pressure of anything happening untoward.

7. It was also case of the husband that apart from exercising atrocities against the husband had also declined to cohabitate with the appellant and, hence, there was no consummation of marriage for a considerable long time which in itself, according the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is sufficient ground for dissolving the marriage because the foundation stone of marriage is it