IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.02.2025 KULDEEP SINGH ...Appellant Versus VEENA DEVI ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr. S.S Swaich, Advocate for appellant Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate and Ms. Mehak Ghangas, Advocate for the respondent SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, (Family Court), Karnal (for short `the Family Court’), whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act’) filed by the appellant-husband was dismissed.

2. The aforesaid petition had been filed by the appellant- husband, inter-alia, pleading therein that his marriage with the respondent-wife was solemnized on 15.06.1981 as per Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born. It was contended that from the very beginning, the respondent-wife exhibited controlling and abusive behaviour, with her family frequently interfering in their lives. Further, the respondent-wife brother’s was having criminal background and the appellant-husband was having threats from them. The respondent-wife made false accusations, including accusing the appellant-husband of attempting to kill her which resulted in a protracted trial, wherein the appellant-husband was finally acquitted. It was further contended that the respondent-wife had been abusive, disrespectful and disruptive to the appellant-husband’s professional and personal life, causing him significant mental distress. Also, since 1993, the respondent-wife deserted the appellant-husband and had repeatedly attempted to humiliate him with false complaints. Despite the appellant-husband’s efforts to save the marriage, the respondent- wife continued her abusive behaviour and had shown no intention to reconcile. It was contended that given the prolonged separation and threats, the relations between the parties had become irreparable.

3. Upon notice, the respondent-wife appeared and filed her written statement alleging that the appellant-husband married one Neela without divorcing her and had concealed the material facts. The marriage took place in 1981, but soon thereafter, the appellant- husband began abusing and criticizing her. It was further asserted that the respondent-wife endured physical abuse at the hands of the appellant-husband and in 1993, the appellant-husband attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her. Although, the respondent-wife filed an FIR, yet the appellant-husband manipulated the police to dismiss the case. Further, in 2009, she discovered that the appellant- husband was living with Neela and their children. When confronted, the appellant-husband gave beatings to her and pressurised her to sign the divorce papers. The respondent-wife also accused him of illegally transferring property to his son. Furthermore, the respondent-wife explicitly denied the accusations of the appellant-husband accusations about her family and behaviour, claiming that the appellant-husband was the one who abused and had ousted her from the matrimonial home.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Family Court:-

i) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP ii) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner continuously for a period of more than two years preceding the petition? OPP iii) Relief.

5. In evidence, the appellant-husband examined himself as PW-1 and had also examined Constable Ajay Singh as PW2 and HC Wazir as PW3. On the other hand, the respondent-wife examined herself as RW-5 and had also examined Pardeep Kumar, Civil Ahlmad as RW1; Sohrab Khurana as RW-2; Tirath Ram Koushesh as RW3; Rakesh Sharma, Assistant Accountant as RW4; and Virender as RW6.

6. The learned Family Court after taking into consideration rival contentions of the parties and evidence on record, dismissed the petiti