Reserved on : 24.11.2025 Delivered on: 03.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 149 of 2024 Khusboo Singh ........Appellant Versus Shri Sandeep Kumar .….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 673 of 2020, Sri Sandeep Kumar v. Smt. Khushboo Singh, by the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”) has been allowed and the marriage between the parties solemnized on 03.12.2024 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The respondent did file a petition for divorce under the Act on the following grounds:-

(i) The marriage between the parties took place on 03.12.2024; the respondent took adequate care of the appellant; there are three more persons in the family of the respondent, viz., his mother, father and brother.

(ii) After the marriage, the parties stayed in the Government accommodation of the respondent in Dehradun, but soon after the marriage, the appellate started taking fights on small issues; she would doubt his fidelity for no reason; she would level false allegations of extra-marital relations of the respondent with his female co-worker.

(iii) The appellant would not cook or take care of the household chores.

(iv) She would abuse the respondent.

(v) Most of the time, she would stay in her parental home. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant was in habit of taking quarrels and insulting the respondent in the presence of his co-workers.

(vi) On 11.04.2017, both the parties were blessed with a baby boy, but thereafter, also the status did not change; the appellant continued doubting relationship; she would check his call details.

(vii) On 12.06.2018, the appellant in the presence of Siddharth Rawat and Sudhanshu Chaudhary and others, levelled false allegation of extra-marital relations on the respondent.

(viii) She has been staying separate now since

17.09.2018. With these and other grounds petition for divorce has been filed.

4. In response, the appellant has denied all the allegations of maltreatment by her. She would submit that she has discharged her marital obligations dutifully; but, the respondent would not take her to Dehradun with him; he would often drop her with his parents; the appellant noted that the respondent would make a video call in the night with unknown person; the respondent has been in extra- marital relationship with a woman in her department, namely, Neelam Bisht. According to the appellant, when she questioned the respondent, he replied that he had old relationship with Neelam Bisht and the appellant should stay away in interfering with their relationship. The appellant has also raised the issues of dowry and harassment. She also records that on 02.12.2019, the respondent had assaulted her.

5. In evidence, on behalf of the respondent five witnesses have been examined, namely, PW 1 the respondent himself, PW 2 Siddharth Rawat, PW 3 Sudhanshu Chaudhary, PW 4 Pramod Kumar and PW 5 Dinesh Chandra. On behalf of the appellant, three witnesses, namely, DW 1 the appellant herself, DW 2 Sudhir Kumar Maurya and DW 3 Vijendra Kumar have been examined. The parties have also filed the documents in support of their contention.

6. The court below did frame two issues, namely - (i) whether the appellant committed cruelty to the respondent, as alleged in various paragraphs of his petition? If so, its effect? And, (ii) Whether the appellant had deserted the respondent as alleged in various paragraphs of the petition? If so, its effect? Finally, issue no.

3 was frame