IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Rajiv Sohal ….Appellant Versus Monica ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.

***

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.12.2000, according to Hindu rites. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Shilpi (daughter) and Sagar (son) were born on 19.12.2001 and 23.02.2005, respectively. It was averred by the appellant-husband that the behaviour of the respondent-wife towards him and his family members was not cordial and she had insulted him many a time. It was further stated that after few days of marriage, the respondent-wife started pressurizing the appellant-husband to reside separately from his parents. She refused to do the household work and avoided her marital duties. She used to leave the matrimonial home frequently, without informing the appellant-husband. In July, 2011, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and made a complaint against the appellant-husband and his family members in Mahila Mandal, where a compromise was effected between them. It was further stated that in the month of December, 2011, the appellant-husband had shifted to Delhi in connection with his job and arranged an accommodation there. He asked the respondent-wife to reside with him at Delhi, but she refused to do so. The family members of the respondent-wife threatened the appellant-husband to implicate him in false cases. The appellant-husband also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, wherein a compromise had been effected between them. Pursuant to the said compromise, the appellant-husband had purchased some property jointly in the name of both the parties, but the respondent-wife refused to reside with him.

Terming the aforesaid acts on the part of the respondent-

wife as cruelty, a decree of divorce was sought for.

3. Upon notice, the respondent-wife entered appearance and filed her written statement admitting the factum of marriage between the parties and birth of the children. However, she denied all other allegations levelled in the petition. Rather, it was pleaded that she had suffered harassment and humiliation at the hands of the appellant- husband and his family members. It was pleaded that at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry articles were given to the appellant-husband and his family members, as per their demand, but they were not happy with the same. It was further the case of the respondent-wife that from the very beginning of the marriage, her elder sister-in-law, Aruna Sohal, was inimical towards her. She had been residing at her parental house along with the minor daughter. It was stated that the appellant-husband used to harass and maltreat the respondent-wife at the instigation of his elder sister, Aruna Sohal, who had spoiled the married life of the respondent-wife. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of the petition was made.

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

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty? OPP.

2. Whether the petition is not legally maintainable?

OPR

3. Relief.

5. In evidence, the appellant-husband himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 Chanchal Kumar and PW-3 Shilpi. On the other hand, the respondent-wife herself appeared as RW-3 and examined Rajesh Kumar RW-1, Sunil Kumar as RW-2, Davinder