The court emphasized that the allegations of infidelity, consistently leveled by the appellant, amounted to cruelty to the respondent wife, and therefore, the appeal for divorce or judicial separation was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

In both these appeals, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 in Case No.238 of 2008, Vineet Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Archana Garg (hereinafter referred to as 'the case'), passed by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the petition filed by the husband was allowed and decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') has been granted.

3. Counterclaim filed by the wife for custody of the children has also been decreed.

4. In this judgment, husband Vinod Kumar Jain will be referred to as the appellant and wife Smt. Archana Garg shall be referred to as the respondent.

5. Simple facts of this case have been given complexity by pleadings; long drawn affidavits and extremely lengthy cross-examinations. Married on 12.12.1993, two children were born, out from the wedlock, to the parties. Appellant Vinod Kumar Jain is employed with ONGC and has been posted in different parts of the country. Appellant filed a petition for divorce or in the alternate, for judicial separation, which is basis of the case.

6. According to the petition, since marriage, the respondent had dislike for the appellant. She used to taunt the appellant saying that she wanted to marry some other person, but she was forced to marry the appellant. Her conduct and behaviour became unbearable. The appellant filed a divorce suit no. 181 of 2006 (first divorce suit). Subsequently, parties entered into a compromise, but again the respondent turned to her old ways. Another divorce petition no.432 of 2007 was filed by the appellant (second divorce suit). The respondent tendered apologies in both the divorce suits. The second divorce suit was also withdrawn by the appellant in view of the apologies as well as the welfare of children. But, again respondent became wild and offensive. She filed false complaint against the appellant; threatened to commit suicide, blaming the appellant for it. Under those conditions, the appellant was forced to leave his house on 22.04.2008 and started living in the guest house. He is in constant danger from the respondent. The appellant has no alternate, but to leave the respondent forever and live separately. These were initial assertions in the petition. Subsequent to it, some more acts were specified by adding a paragraph 11-A in the petition, which includes sending a false telegram to the senior officers of the appellant on 16.12.2003, when he was going to Sudan; engaging a detective eye of Gwalior; false complaint to National Commission for Women in November, 2004; a false Police complaint against the appellant on 03.05.2006 by the respondent; on 12.05.2008 giving a false complaint to the Police; having various SIM cards with the respondent for talking with her male friends in an intimate manner; cruel behaviour of the respondent etc.

7. The respondent wife filed written statement. According to her, soon after the marriage, she was harassed for the demand of dowry; she was treated badly like servants in the house. First divorce suit was filed by the appellant without any reason on the basis of false story so as to get ex-party divorce. The respondent moved an application for maintenance. To avoid payment of maintenance, the appellant tendered apologies and withdrew the first divorce suit. In the second divorce suit also, the respondent moved an application for maintenance for her and her children and again to avoid payment of maintenance, the appellant withdrew the second divorce suit. According to the written statement of the respondent, it was the habit of the appellant to stay in the hotels and guest houses with other women and remain out from the house without informing her. Somehow the respondent was taking care of her children and in those days, she would contact at all the possible places where she could trace her husband. In sum and substance, the respondent denied the allegations leveled a