FAO No. M-395 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. NO. M-395 OF 2010 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010. Ajmer Singh .......Appellant Vs. Biljinder Kaur ......Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010, passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (for short an 'Act') was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was married with the respondent as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. They cohabited as husband and wife in village Dharamgarh and a daughter namely Anmol Kaur was born. The respondent after marriage started creating problems. She never respected the appellant and his parents, never prepared food for them and used abusive language. The respondent had suicidal tendencies and after three months of marriage, she consumed pesticides, but due to timely treatment, she was saved. She also poured FAO No. M-395 of 2010 -2- kerosene oil on herself and tried to burn but due to intervention of her mother-in-law, she was rescued. She repeated the same act on 01.2.2010, after which she was taken to hospital at Panipat from where she was referred to P.G.I, Rohtak. She also revealed that she is not happy with marriage as she wanted to marry someone else. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the appellant to lead a happy married life with the respondent. 3. Before the court below, the respondent was proceeded against exparte. The appellant examined four witnesses to prove the averments in the petition but the court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant has failed to bring sufficient evidence to prove his case. The court below also held that no medical record was tendered into evidence and that the police was never informed regarding the attempts committed by the respondent. It was also held by the Lower Court that it has not been satisfactorily proved that the appellant and the respondent were living seperately and were not maintaining relationship of husband and wife. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the petition of the appellant as the appellant had sufficiently proved on record that he is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and to prove these grounds, the statements of persons residing in the family of the appellant were suffficient. Further the fact that the respondent was proceeded against exparte, the evidence of appellant had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. FAO No. M-395 of 2010 -3- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. In the present case, the appellant averred that the respondent was having suicidal tendencies. Thrice she attempted for committing suicide but the medical record, as stated in the petition, has not been proved by the appellant. As per the stand of the appellant, the respondent was firstly admitted in a hospital at Panipat after her attempt to suicide on 1.2.2010 and thereafter she was shifted to P.G.I, Rohtak, but there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the same. The statements of witnesses have not been supported by any documentary evidence and in the absence of it, the allegations cannot be said to be sufficiently proved. Even if the respondent was proceeded against exparte during trial, still the appellant had to prove his case in order to satisfy the court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) Judge 15.12.2010 gp