IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.02.2025 Vinod Kumar ….Appellant Versus Raj Luxmi ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Ms. Neha Dewan, Advocate, and Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate, for the appellant-husband.

SUDHIR SINGH , J .

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Hisar (for short ‘the Family Court’), whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent-wife was allowed and marriage between the parties was dissolved on the ground of cruelty.

2. The aforesaid petition had been filed by the respondent-wife, inter-alia, pleading therein that her marriage with the appellant-husband was solemnized on 20.02.2011 as per Hindu rites but no child was born out of the said wedlock. It was further pleaded that the appellant- husband and his family maltreated the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband admitted marrying the respondent-

wife under pressure and abused her without any fault of hers. Further, it was pleaded that the appellant-husband also harassed her for more dowry. It was further alleged that in 2014, the respondent-wife was selected as a teacher in Kendriya Vidhalaya, Jammu. In 2017, the appellant- husband approached the respondent-wife at Jammu & Kashmir without any intimation to her school and had misbehaved with her. Later on, he had tendered an apology but lived peacefully only for 15 days and during that period he had demanded money from the respondent-wife for his personal need but the money so given by the respondent- wife had been spent by the appellant-husband into gambling. It was further pleaded that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down.

3. Upon notice, the appellant-husband entered appearance and filed his written statement admitting the factum of marriage but denying the allegations made in the petition claiming that no dowry was exchanged and described the respondent-wife as quarrelsome and disrespectful. It was further submitted that the respondent- wife refused to do household chores; insulted his family and frequently left the matrimonial home without permission. Further, despite supporting her education, her behaviour changed after becoming a teacher and she publicly denied their marriage.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Family Court, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce from the respondent on the grounds alleged in the petition? OPP

2. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus-standi to file present petition? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by her own act and conduct? OPR

5. Relief.

5. In evidence, the respondent-wife herself appeared as PW-3 and had also examined PW1-Mange Ram and PW2- Om Parkash besides tendering documents Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, the appellant-husband himself appeared as RW1 and had also examined RW2- Chander Bhan, RW3 Sube Singh and RW4 Raj Kumar.

6. The learned Family Court, after taking into consideration rival contentions of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the petition filed by the respondent-wife, as noticed above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has vehemently argued that the finding of the learned Family Court as regards the cruelty committed by him to the respondent-wife is patently illegal. He emphasized that no act of cruelty was committed by him towards the respondent-wife and that the claim of the respondent-wife was unfounded. Instead, he points out that it was the respondent-wife who, without any legitimate or reasonable cause, chose to leave his company. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband has further argued that he had no issues or grievances with the respondent-wife,