THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 184 of 2012 Reserved on:05.0P9.2023 Decided on: 18.09.2023 Simro Devi …...Appellant.

versus Onkar Singh f …...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ Yes.

For the appellant: Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate.

Rak esh Kainthla, Judge:

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.11.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., vide which the divorce petition filed by the respondent (petitioner before the learned Trial Court) was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(i)((ia)

of the Hindu Marriage Act. (For the sake of convenie.nce, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner, as they were arrayed before the learned Trial CouHrt).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petoitioner filed a petition under Sections 13(i)(ia) and 13(i)( ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marrriage by granting a decree of divorce. It was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Talpura as per Hindu rites on 24.2.1976. The parties resided together as husband and wife at Radh Thamba in the house of the petitioner. One son and three daughters were born to the parties. One daughter died. Two daughters are married and they are residing in their matrimonial homes. The son of the parties is working in a wine shop and earning ₹ 5,000/- per month. The respondent started quarrelling with the petitioner after about six years of the marriage without rhyme and reason. The petitioner was posted at Shimla in 1983 and he took the respondent with him; however, she left the company of the petitioner after quarrelling with him without any reason.

The respondent used to quarrel with the petitio.ner, whenever he used to visit Village Samloti; hence, the petitioner was compelled to construct a Hhouse at Baroie to lead a peaceful life. The house of the petitioner at Radh Thamba was given to the respondent. She is also cultivating the land to maintain herself. The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2000 and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra awarded ₹ 500/- per month as maintenance to her. She filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enh ancing the maintenance. She filed a civil suit against the petitioner to grab his property. The respondent made false allegations against the petitioner in the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which caused mental cruelty to the petitioner. Respondent used to insult the petitioner in the society and she insulted him on 10.5.2000 at Baroie. She refused to cohabit with the petitioner despite his best efforts; hence, the petition was filed to seek the reliefs, mentioned above.

3. The petition was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack. of maintainability and the petitioner having not come to the Court with clean hands. The relationsHhips between the parties were not disputed. It was also admitted that three children were born to the parties and one daughter has died. It was asserted that the respondent spent money for the marriage of her daughters and the petitioner had not contributed anything. The petitioner left the company of the respondent and started residing at Village Baroie. He never maintained his family. When the respondent visited Shim la with the petitioner, she came to know that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage and he was residing with his second wife. When the respondent made inquiries from the petitioner, the petitioner quarreled with her. The petitioner never returned to his home at Samloti after solemnizing the second marriage. The petitioner is not being maintaine