FAO No. M-340 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. M-340 of 2008 Date of Decision : 20.7.2009 Amit Walia .......... Appellant Versus Smt. Rajni Walia ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kaithal vide which the petition filed by the appellant / husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty stands dismissed. The learned Addl.District Judge, Kaithal did not find the allegations levelled in the petition, to be sufficient to constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of divorce to the appellant / husband. The findings recorded by the learned matrimonial Court read as under :- “7. The allegations in the petition are merely bald allegations that the respondent is of quarrelsome nature and is picking up quarrels over the petty matters. The FAO No. M-340 of 2008 2 cruelty as defined under Section 13 of the Act is a matter of fact that a spouse complaining of cruelty must feel endangered at the hands of other spouse. The allegations in the present petition are merely that the respondent was not cooking food or was not paying due respect towards the petitioner or towards the parents of the petitioner. There are absolutely no allegations that the petitioner was being defamed or rebuked publicly by the respondent. Although in the complaint Ex. PA it has been mentioned that the petitioner was provided physical beatings but there are no such allegations in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered by the Court. The normal bare and tear of life do not constitute cruelty as defined under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. No specific instances have been given in the petition if any cruel act was ever done by the respondent towards the petitioner and his family members. 8. As a sequel to my above said discussion, this Court is of the views that the petitioner has failed to establish if he was ever treated with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage by the respondent and accordingly the petition is ordered to be dismissed without any order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.” The learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the learned Matrimonial Court has not looked into the evidence led in support of the allegations. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. I have gone through the pleadings in the petition under Section FAO No. M-340 of 2008 3 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and find that the allegations levelled are vague and lack material particulars. In absence of pleading of necessary ingredients of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act the learned matrimonial Court was right in holding that cruelty was not proved, as evidence beyond pleading could not be looked into. The judgment and decree, therefore, calls for no interference in appeal. Dismissed but with no order as to costs. 20.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE