In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. M-368 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 16, 2009 Mahender .. Appellant Vs. Raj Bala .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J CM No.29439-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. application is allowed. FAO No.M-368 of 2009 & CM No.29440-CII of 2009 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar, dissolving the marriage between the appellant-respondent (herein referred as 'the respondent') and the petitioner-respondent (herein referred as 'the petitioner') by a decree of divorce, as such, the respondent has challenged the validity of the decree. Cruelty is the main ground for seeking divorce but he Tribunal appears to have appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. At the time of marriage of Raj Bala-petitioner, her elder sister Kavita was also got married with Rohtas brother of the respondent. On demand raised by Rohtas, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was given to him for purchase of the motor cycle, but being dis-satisfied, Rohtas and his mother set her sister Kavita ablaze, resultantly, she died. Kavita in her dying declaration (Annexure P1) had disclosed that the respondent as well as her mother in law had set Kavita ablaze. The respondent and his mother had to face trial under Sections 302/498-A/34 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Hisar. It is also established on record that the respondent has been treating the petitioner F.A.O. No. M-368 of 2009 -2- *** with cruelty on account of the demand of dowry. Sufficient evidence has been led to prove the cruelty and demand of dowry. In any case, when there are serious allegations against the brother of the respondent and his mother for killing the sister of the petitioner and there are also allegations against them that they were torturing the petitioner on account of demand of dowry, then in the given circumstances it would be difficult for the petitioner to live at the house of the respondent. Sufficient evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove the cruelty against her. The Tribunal appears to have rightly dealt with the issue. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. December 16, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge