IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.03.2025 KULDEEP SINGH ...Appellant Versus DIPTI ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohinder S. Nain, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Gupta, advocate for appellant Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for the respondent SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (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 27.02.2009 as per Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born. It was asserted by the appellant-husband that despite the financial constraints of the respondent-wife’s family, the appellant-husband and his family agreed to the marriage due to her beauty and their social status. Further, it was submitted that in October, 2009, the father of the respondent-wife demanded large sums of money from the appellant-husband, which led to tension and cruelty from her side. The respondent-wife also threatened the appellant-husband when he refused to meet these financial demands. Furthermore, it was pleaded that in May, 2010, the respondent-wife left with her family, taking jewellery and money from the matrimonial house. It was further alleged that efforts were made to contact the elder sister and brother-in-law of the respondent- wife, but all in vain. On 21.05.2010, it was learnt through the newspapers and national news channels that respondent-wife had got registered a criminal case bearing FIR No. 306 dated 21.05.2010 under Sections 406, 498A, 506, 341 IPC at Police Station, City Yamuna Nagar against the appellant-husband and his family members. The said matter was widely telecast bringing disrepute and causing the appellant-husband and family members mental torture and harassment. Terming the aforesaid acts on the part of the respondent-

wife as cruelty, 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 and birth of the child. However, it was asserted that the petition was not maintainable, as the appellant-husband lacked locus and that he had concealed the material facts from the Court. It was claimed that the parents of the respondent-wife spent a large sum on the marriage, providing substantial dowry and Istridhan. The respondent-wife further alleged that despite her father booking a Mercedes car for the ceremony, the appellant-husband rejected it, claiming it not to be of his standard and rather demanded a BMW. The respondent-wife further asserted that in March, 2009, during a visit to Yamuna Nagar, the appellant-husband and his family demanded a BMW and cash. Despite the birth of their son in December, 2009, the appellant-husband and his family continued to maltreat the respondent-wife, demanding goods and articles from her parents. Furthermore, the respondent-wife alleged that she was forced to perform household chores like a servant and was not allowed to perform religious rituals. The appellant-husband had also issued threats of taking away the child. She was ousted from the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that the atrocious acts and conduct of the appellant-husband and his family members, had compelled her to lodge the aforesaid FIR against the appellant-

husband and his family members.

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 for divorce by dissolution of marriage, as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether the petition is not maintaina