FAO No. M-359 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. M-359 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.11.2010 Harjit Kaur ... Appellant vs Pawan Verma .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajay Mehra, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The wife is in appeal before this court challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court below whereby in a petition filed by the respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), a decree of divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Briefly the pleaded facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 22.6.2002 as per Hindu rites. After the marriage, the parties resided and cohabited together as husband and wife only for a week in Chandigarh. They started living separately from each other with effect from 29.6.2002. No child was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged by the respondent husband that he was shocked to learn from the appellant wife that every week she would live in her parental house for five days and for remaining two days she would stay with him. This unwanted desire of the appellant wife, created differences between the parties. She made a false complaint regarding demand of dowry against the husband, his mother and brother. The respondent husband and his family members were summoned. The said complaint was dismissed. It was also alleged that by using influence of Lakhwinder Singh, who is brother-in-law of the appellant, she got FIR No. 5 dated 10.1.2004, registered against the respondent husband under Section 406/498-A IPC, in which he was acquitted by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, on 27.4.2007. Thereafter, said Lakhwinder Singh in connivance with the appellant filed a suit for recovery of ` 20,00,000/- on the allegations of defamation. However, when he was directed to affix court fee on the amount of ` 20,00,000/- lacs, then he curtailed his claim to ` 2,00,000/-. The petition filed by appellant under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance was also dismissed. The appellant wife also filed a petition under Section 13 of the FAO No. M-359 of 2010 -2- Act for dissolution of marriage. The said petition was contested by the respondent husband, however, due to non-payment of arrears of maintenance, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The wife also did not lead any evidence and ultimately the case was dismissed in default on 14.3.2006. Later on, the respondent husband came to know that one Major Singh had been residing in the house of the appellant wife. She had married with Major Singh without taking divorce from him. She changed her name from Harjit Kaur to Manjit Kaur. She also delivered a female baby on 2.4.2006 at PGI Chandigarh. The respondent made a complaint with the police for registration of a case. As no action was taken by the police, the husband filed a criminal complaint in the court which is pending. The husband alleged that in these circumstances living with her is dangerous to his life. With the aforesaid allegations, the husband filed divorce petition. Upon notice, the appellant filed reply wherein preliminary objection was taken that the petition is false and frivolous. On merits, it was submitted that the marriage was solemnized as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. However, it was admitted that she remained in the matrimonial home upto 29.6.2002 and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. Since then she is living with her parents. She submitted that due to their separation, her father expired after 1½ years. She is totally dependent upon her widow mother who is having meager rental income. The dowry was given as per their status. It was admitted that her brother-in-law was constable in the Punjab police but denied the fact that he used any influence in lodging of the FIR. The FIR was registered after thorough investigation. As she did not receive any summon, therefore, she could not appear which resulted into dismissal of the said case. As regards the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C., it was submitted that maintenance was granted to her. The revision filed by the husband against that order was dismissed. The court also directed the husband to submit the bank guarantee in respect of arrears of maintenance but he did not do so. The factum of marriage with Major Singh and also change of her name from Harjit Kaur to Manjit Kaur was denied by her. She also denied the birth of any female child. The prayer was dismissal of the divorce petition. Replication was filed by the husband-respondent, reiterating the facts mentioned in the petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty since after the marriage ? OPP FAO No. M-359 of 2010 -3- 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Relief. As the learned Trial Court recorded findings adverse to the appellant on all the issues, she is before this court. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the paper-book. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the parties lived as husband and wife only for a short period of five days. It is also not disputed that the wife got registered FIR No. 5 dated 10.1.2004, against the respondent husband under Section 406/498-A IPC, in which he was acquitted by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, on 27.4.2007. The divorce petition filed by the wife was also dismissed due to her non-appearance. The brother-in-law of the appellant filed a civil suit for recovery against the respondent-husband, which was also dismissed on 30.3.2010. The brother-in-law of the appellant also filed civil and criminal cases against the respondent. The aforesaid acts of the appellant were sufficient to prove that the husband has been treated with cruelty. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 1.11.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge