F.A.O. No. M-171 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. FAO No. M-171 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2010 Satish Kumar .... Appellant vs Smt. Rama Devi .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate,for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J. The husband is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.2010 passed the learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby he accepted the petition of the respondent-wife filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. Brief facts of the case are that the parties entered into nuptial-knot on 13.2.2005 at Village Kheri, Tehsil and District Panchkula, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. According to the respondent-wife, her parents celebrated the marriage by giving sufficient dowry. However, the appellant and his family members were not happy with the same. It was alleged that on 13.2.2005, when she reached the matrimonial home, her mother and sister-in-law on seeing the dowry articles used filthy language and made remarks against her parents. They started humiliating and torturing the respondent on account of bringing insufficient dowry. It was also alleged that her husband used to beat her at the instance of his parents and his family members. The appellant and his family members wanted to turn out the respondent from her matrimonial home and to marry the appellant in a rich family. This fact was brought by the respondent to her parents and thereafter many panchayats were convened to settle the matter. In the year 2005, before Diwali, father of the respondent along with Surinder Kumar went to Village Baronda and gave Rs. 40,000/- to Suresh Kumar, brother of the appellant, for purchase of motorcycle as per their choice. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was given to them on the eve of Bhaiya Dooj. The respondent in the year 2006 went to her parental home on the eve of Lohri. On 24.1.2006, the appellant came there to take her back to her matrimonial home. He knew very well that the doctors had advised complete rest to the respondent wife she being pregnant. Inspite of that the appellant husband compelled her to put the luggage on her shoulder at the time F.A.O. No. M-171 of 2010 (2) also when the buses were changed at Ambala Cantt. Shahbad and Ladwa. Due to this action of the appellant, she started bleeding but the appellant did not provide her any medical aid and later on her pregnancy was terminated. After that she was left at Village Kheri by her husband by saying that he will come later on after taking fruits but he did not turn up. The respondent was got admitted by her parents at Civil Hospital, Raipur Rani and Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula. Intimation in this regard was also given to the appellant but he refused to talk and to take her back to the matrimonial home. On 22.2.2006, the appellant and his family members agreed to take back the respondent. As the behaviour of the appellant and his family members was not changed, the respondent lodged a case registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 315, 506 IPC Upon notice, the appellant husband filed written statement controverting the instances of cruelty and demand of dowry in the marriage. The respondent has never been humiliated and tortured as alleged by her in the petition. Infact, she was not happy with the marriage as she wanted to marry some other person in Village Kharindwa. It was averred that she had lodged complaint on the instigation of her brother-in-law. It was also averred that he has not left the respondent rather she has deserted him. No replication was filed by the respondent-wife. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the petition is false and frivolous as alleged? OPP 3. Relief. After due analysis and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the trial court accepted the petition and dissolved the marriage between the parties vide judgment and decree dated 6.4.2010. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court, the husband has now impugned the same by filing the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the respondent-wife got fed up with the ill behaviour and continuous demand of dowry made by the appellant and his family members. The lust for the dowry has reached its peak when he threw his wife out of the matrimonial house and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that her allegations in the petition for dowry are false. The appellant and his brother Suresh Kumar were convicted for the alleged offence under F.A.O. No. M-171 of 2010 (3) Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years vide judgment, Ex. P1. As has been held by the learned District Judge, the allegation of payment of Rs. 45,000/- to Satish Kumar, brother of the appellant, has not been denied by Satish Kumar by putting appearance in the witness box. The allegation of the appellant that the respondent was not happy with the marriage as she wanted to marry some other person in Village Kharindawa near Shahbad and that she had love affair with the brother of her brother-in-law could not be proved by the appellant. The witness RW2 Joginder Singh, in his cross-examination denied any relationship of the respondent with her relative. Moreover, if she wanted to marry with brother of her brother-in-law, she could easily tell her parents of her choice. In her cross-examination, the respondent-wife stated that demand of dining table was raised by the appellant, Satish Kumar and father-in-law at the time of phera ceremony. She also proved that the miscarriage was the result of the cruelty committed by the appellant and his relatives. As is clear from the judgment of the learned District Judge, civil and criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband and his family members when she lost every method to save her matrimonial home. The facts and circumstances appearing in the case suggest that the husband has committed grave acts of cruelty which had impact on the mind of the wife beyond repairs. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the parties to the petition are living separately from each other for the last four years, husband and his brother were convicted in a criminal case lodged by the respondent-wife, they have reached at a stage from where return is not possible. It can be termed as a broken marriage. If the same is allowed to continue, it would mean that the parties are compelled to live a miserable and disastrous life. In the light of above discussion, no case is made out to interfere in the judgment and decree of the court below. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is dismissed as such. 4.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge