FAO No.1257 of 2020 (O&M)

- 1 -

245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.1257 of 2020 (O&M)

Date of decision : April 26, 2022

Ekta

....... Petitioner

Versus

Vikas Karadwal

....... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:-

Appellant in person along with Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate.

Respondent in person along with Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate.

RITU BAHRI,

J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present appeal is the judgment and decree

dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family

Court, Ludhiana, whereby the divocre petition filed by the appellant-wife

was dismissed.

Appellant-Ekta had filed a petition under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( for short 'the Act') on 11.03.2015. She stated

that her marriage was solemnized with Vikas Karadwal on 30.03.2011 as per

Hindu rites; she gave birth to a son, namely Vibhor, on 22.05.2012. Soon

after the marriage, behaviour of the husband and his family members was

not cordial with the petitioner and they started demanding Rs.10 lacs from

her family members for repayment of a loan. The parents of the petitioner

gave Rs.5 lacs in the presence of one Dinesh Kumar, brother of the

petitioner, Jagdish maternal uncle of the petitioner, Lokeshwar and uncle

Deewan Chand and other respectables on 01.11.2011. She was thrown out

SARITA RANI

2022.05.13 14:21

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

FAO No.1257 of 2020 (O&M)

- 2 -

of her matrimonial home on 25.12.2011 when she was pregnant of two

months. The husband instead of rehabilitating with his wife threatened her

that he would not allow her to enter to her matrimonial home. The efforts of

the Panchayat also remained futile.

1. FIR No.91, dated 06.09.2013 registered under Sections

406/498-A of IPC was registered at Police Station Women Cell,

Ludhiana against the respondent.

2. Appellant-Ekta filed a complaint under Section 12 read with

Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, on 22.08.2013, which was

pending in the Court at Ludhiana.

3. Appellant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at

Ludhian Courts and she was awarded monthly maintenance of

Rs.8,000/- vide order dated 26.09.2013.

The Family Court, Ludhiana framed the following issues:

“1.

Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of her

marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion as prayed for?

OPP

2.

Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

3.

Relief.”

The appellant while leading evidence with regard to the issues

PW1 Dinesh Kargwal, PW2 Deewan Chand and she herself stepped into the

witness box as PW3 and closed her evidence. The respondent, on the other

hand, himself stepped into the witness box as RW1, examined RW2 Manjit

Kumar and RW3 Pritpal Singh and closed his evidence.

After going through the evidence, the Family Court has given

SARITA RANI

2022.05.13 14:21

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

FAO No.1257 of 2020 (O&M)

- 3 -

the findings on issue no.1 that no cruelty and desertion was made out

against the respondent-husband.

In FIR No.91, dated 06.09.2013, challan was presented as per

copy Ex.P3 before the concerned Court for trial of the respondent but the

same case has not been decided. Copy of the Civil Suit No.980 of 2015 is

Ex.P4, which has been filed by the appellant-wife against the respondent

and his family members.

Respondent-husband appeared as RW1 and had referred to Ex.

R-1, a complaint made by the father of appellant-Ekta to the Sr.

Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and the same was consigned after

recording the statement Ex.R-2 as per order passed by the Sr.

Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, Ex.R3.

The petition filed under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 on 22.08.2013 against the m