IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.03.2025 VARINDER KAUR ……Appellant Versus AMRITPAL SINGH …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present:- Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Jalandhar (for short the ‘Family Court’), whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent-husband, was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2. The aforesaid petition had been filed by the respondent- husband, inter alia, alleging therein that his marriage with the appellant-wife was solemnized on 27.11.2005, according to Sikh rites and out of the said wedlock one child, namely, Joydeep Singh was born on 28.09.2006. It was further asserted that the status of the respondent-husband was clearly disclosed to the appellant-wife before the marriage. However, immediately after the marriage, the appellant-

wife started insulting the respondent-husband by saying that she had never intended to marry him, but it was so done under the pressure from her family. She created scenes and openly said that she did not want to live with her in-laws. Her behaviour was rude and insulting towards the parents of the respondent-husband. On 20.03.2006, she left the matrimonial home for her parental house, but she was brought back on 03.04.2006. On the occasion of Rakhi, she again went to her parental house, but refused to come back. A Panchayat was convened and the appellant-wife agreed to come back on the condition of living separately from the family of the respondent-husband. In order to save their marriage, the parties started living separately, but the appellant- wife pressurized the respondent-husband to live with her in her parental house. She filed a complaint to the Women Cell, Kapurthala on 08.09.2007 and gave in writing on 18.12.2007, that she did not want to reside with the respondent-husband. She had filed a petition against the respondent-husband and ultimately, a compromise was effected in the Lok Adalat on 05.06.2008 at Nakodar and the parties started residing separately in a rental accommodation. However, the appellant-wife did not allow the grandparents of the child to meet him. In December, 2016, the appellant-wife took the minor child with her to her parental house but came back only after a great persuasion. In January, 2017, the appellant-wife refused to have sexual intercourse with the respondent-husband on the ground that she would not allow him the marital bliss, unless he got separated from his family members. From the WhatsApp chat of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband came to learn that she was talking to one Sukhmander Singh, who was working as a clerk at Lohian School and the chatting with the said person was of an intricate and personal nature. When confronted, she admitted of her liking for said Sukhmander Singh. A Panchayat was convened on 08.05.2018 and she was allowed to take her articles from the matrimonial home and while collecting the said articles, she had threatened the respondent- husband to make his life hell and further told that in case the respondent-husband had filed divorce petition, she would involve him in a false case. The appellant-wife also filed a complaint on 08.03.2018. Terming the aforesaid acts and conduct of the appellant-

wife as cruelty, a decree of divorce had been sought for.

3. Upon notice, the appellant-wife entered appearance and filed her written statement, admitting the factum of marriage and birth of the child. However, it was alleged that the respondent-husband and his family members had taunted the appellant-wife for having brought insufficient dowry. At one point of time, the respondent-husband and his parents st