FAO No. M-80 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No. M-80 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 11.08.2011 Kamaljit Kaur ....Appellant Vs. Harkirat Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Dharmender Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Narresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by Kamaljit Kaur- appellant against the judgment dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dismissing her petition for dissolution of marriage. According to the appellant, her marriage was solemnized on 23.10.1999. The appellant has levelled various allegations with regard to the demand of dowry by the respondent and maltreatment on that account. She has also alleged that a male child was born out of the wedlock. It has also been urged that maltreatment continued and ultimately she was turned out of the house on 09.08.2005 and she was deserted by the respondent without any reasonable cause or excuse. The respondent contested the petition, while admitting FAO No. M-80 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the marriage and that the male child was born out of the wedlock of the parties, he has denied all other allegations. It has been further averred that the respondent is not being allowed to meet his son and she has not responded to the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights. It has also been added that the appellant was kept nicely by the respondent. Parents of the respondent had also given golden ornaments worth Rs.3.5 Lacs and he had a blind faith in the appellant and got his individual saving account converted into joint account in the State Bank of India, New Officers' Colony, branch Patiala. Thereafter, another account was opened in the name of the appellant in the same bank bearing account No.40308 on 12.03.2003, wherein a sum of Rs.48,000/- was got transferred from the joint account. A sum of Rs.3,01,985/- was got deposited by respondent in joint account of the appellant, after getting encashed the FDR which was in the name of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent is not guilty of the desertion or cruelty. The issues were framed, but the issues with regard to cruelty and desertion were decided against the appellant. The appellant does not appear to be genuine in her cause, as she has failed to prove, by cogent evidence, that the respondent had deserted her and had broken his matrimonial ties with her for all times to come. It was the appellant, who had taken the lead to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. She had also filed a petition against the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has been admitted by the appellant during cross- examination that respondent had initiated the proceedings under FAO No. M-80 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but she did not show her willingness while stating that she would see the fate of the petition under Section 13 of the Act. On examining the impugned judgment, it appears that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 11th of August, 2011 JUDGE ajp