IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 30.01.2025 Pronounced on: 24.02.2025 RAKESH MITTAL ...Appellant Versus SHEETAL ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul (for short the ‘trial 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 16.02.2009 as per Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born. At that point, the respondent-wife expressed concerns about their son’s education due to her perceived lack of education and progressive mindset in the appellant-husband’s family. It was further pleaded that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to Gurgaon for a better environment. On refusal of the appellant-husband citing his well- established business in Narnaul and his unwillingness to leave his family, the respondent-wife began creating problems. Further, the respondent-wife disobeyed him; refused to fulfil her duties; stopped cooking and eventually left Narnaul in May, 2010, taking their son along with her. Despite efforts to reconcile, interference of her parents had caused the marriage to deteriorate. The appellant-husband further pleaded that the respondent-wife deserted him without valid reason and that her acts amounted to cruelty. Thus, a decree of divorce had been sought for.

3. Upon notice, the respondent-wife appeared and filed her written statement admitting the factum of marriage. It was asserted that she always wanted to stay with the appellant-husband and his family at Narnaul and had never failed in her duties or misbehaved with them. The respondent-wife further asserted that the appellant- husband intentionally refused to keep her with him and she had denied the allegation of desertion. She further stated that the appellant- husband had fabricated claims of cruelty and rather, it was he, who had physically and emotionally mistreated her.

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

“i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition, as alleged?

ii) Relief.”

5. In evidence, the appellant-husband examined himself as PW3; PW-1 Rattan Saini and PW-2 Om Prakash Bansal. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself as RW-3; RW-1 Rattan Lal;

RW-2 Moti Lal; RW-4 Virender Kumar and RW-5 Suman.

6. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration rival contentions of the parties and evidence on record, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-husband, as noticed above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has vehemently argued that the marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife has become a dead wood as they have been living separately for the past 15 years. It is further submitted that all the efforts of mediation between the parties proved futile. He has further submitted that all this has caused mental cruelty to the appellant-husband and the sole objective of the respondent-wife is to keep herself engaged in a never-ending litigation.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- wife, while defending the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, has submitted that the appellant-husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongs. In support of the said assertions, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife refers to Section 23 of the Act. It is submitted that the appellant-husband himself deserted the respondent-wife and was never willing to cohabit with her and, therefore, if