Per Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

These are two appeals, being First Appeal No. 13 of 2016, Smt. Seema Vs. Shiv Singh Negi and First Appeal No. 14 of 2016, Smt. Seema Vs. Shiv Singh Negi.

2. In the former appeal, the appellant wife has challenged the judgment dated 16.12.2015, whereby, the Family Court has decreed the Suit, being Suit No. 118 of 2013, filed by the respondent Shiv Singh Negi, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.

3. While, in the connected Appeal, being First Appeal No. 14 of 2016, filed by the wife, challenges have been given by the appellant wife to the judgment dated 17th December, 2015, whereby her Original Application No. 91 of 2011, Smt. Seema Vs. Shiv Singh Negi under Section 9 has been rejected.

4. The factual backdrop in both the appeals are identical, hence, for the purposes of brevity, these appeals are being decided together.

5. The case of the appellant wife in the appeals is that she was married with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals on 19th April, 2000, and out of the wedlock, a son Anshul was born who has been forcefully kept by the wife. Primarily, the divorce petition was filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion which was registered as Suit No. 117 of 2011. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 6th August, 2011, had dismissed the Suit holding thereof that the Suit was not maintainable in view of the bar created by law and issue no. 4 pertaining to the jurisdiction was decided against the respondent by the judgment dated 17th May, 2013, and High Court quashed the findings recorded by the District Judge in its order dated 6th August, 2011, while deciding issue No. 4.

6. Thereafter, the plaint was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted by the respondent before the Family Court, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

7. In the petition, thus filed, the wife submitted that out of the wedlock, one son Anshul was born, who was at the time of presentation of the petition for dissolution of marriage, was 11 years of age.

8. The primary ground for desertion was that the respondent wife is of extrovert nature and often moves around freely without prior consent and permission from the husband or other elderly persons of the family. A certain misunderstanding and over ambitiousness increased whereby the wife wanted that the property belonging to the parents may be transferred to the wife. When the same was not acceded to, the situation of the family gradually started worsening. According to the husband, the wife started harassing the parents for transfer of the land in her name. She wanted the parents to transfer their land in her favour which was yet again not accepted by the family members which increased misunderstanding amongst themselves.

9. The allegation of the husband was that often, now and then, the appellant/wife was seen in an objectionable situation alongwith her brother-in-law and her continuance with the brother-in-law in the said relationsnhip was doubtful as it goes to show that she had some illicit relationship with him as she was found in a doubtful situation with him.

10. According to the husband, the wife was an Aaganwari Karyakarti who was receiving a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. as an honorarium. Her income gave her a sense of superiority complex and she tried to develop superiority complex as against the husband.

11. The case of the appellant before the Court below was a case under Section 13 (i) (i-b) that the alleged pregnancy which the appellant claimed to be was not a pregnancy which has occurred because of him, because, according to him, for last more than two years, they didn’t have any physical relationship which in itself constitutes to be a ground of desertion. The wife, in response, submitted that for the last 11 years from the date of the marriage, she