S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment dated 22.8.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari. The learned Judge allowed the wife’s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter “the Act”) and dismissed the husband’s counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

2. The facts relevant to decide the case are that the wife (“Respondent”) married the appellant on 9.8.1989 in New Delhi; two sons were born from the wedlock on 26.10.1992 and 17.6.1996.The wife, in her petition before the learned Judge alleged various acts of mental as well as physical cruelty to which she was subjected by the appellant husband. In her petition she alleged that the appellant used to constantly taunt her for getting insufficient dowry and would, at times, lock her up in a room. It is also alleged that the appellant is highly aggressive and accustomed to inflicting cruelty because of which his previous marriage ended in divorce within just a few months. The wife alleged that the appellant humiliated and abused her on a daily basis, which impacted the children as well. It was alleged by the respondent wife that once in July 2004, the appellant beat her and banged her head on the wall leading to her sustaining multiple injuries; she did not, however, disclose it for the sake of her children. She claims that this sort of physical violence as well as cruelty and humiliation was regular feature that she suffered for several years for the welfare of her children.

3. The wife had alleged that matters took a turn for the worse when on 1.5.2006 at about 4.00 pm, the Appellant abused her and began beating his son. A PCR had to be called to diffuse the situation. The same night, upon the wife returning home with her son, the appellant refused to open the door and let them in; he threatened to kill her and the children. Yet again PCR was called so that they could enter the house. On 1.5.2006 and 3.5.2006 the wife was constrained to file criminal complaints with the SHO, C.R. Park and demanded police security. It is under these circumstances that the respondent sought dissolution of marriage and instituted the petition on 6.3.2007.

4. The appellant husband in his defence, denied all allegations of cruelty and accused the respondent wife of misconduct. He filed a counter claim, under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, and impleaded Himanshu Deshpal (“Himanshu”) who is respondent No.2 in the present appeal. He alleged that the respondent wife complained for the first time only in 2006, after more than 18 years of marriage as she was in an extra-marital affair with Himanshu Deshpal, which is continuing ever since. He alleged that the respondent/wife and Himanshu Deshpal had made several outstation trips including one to Agra along with the children. He alleged that the wife was a serial litigant who had filed a complaint before the CAW Cell as well as filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act under section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, thus suggesting the appellant’s innocence.

5. Based on the claims of the respondent and counter claim of the appellant, the learned Judge framed the following issues for determination on 12.5.2008:—

“1. Whether the respondent Sh. Gopal Krishan Dua has, after solemnization of marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner Rajni Dua, wife has withdrawn from the society of Gopal Krishan Dua without reasonable excuse? OPR1

3. Whether the petitioner Rajni Dua had illicit relations with Himashu Deshpal @ Hunny and thus after the solemnization marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than her spouse? OPR1

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief claimed? OPP

5. Whether the respondent is entitled to relief