- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05-10-2007, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Original Suit No. 251 of 2003, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce is dismissed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that appellant / husband filed a petition un der Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce against his wife Smt. Geeta Rani (respondent) before the Prin cipal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. It is pleaded by the appellant/husband in said petition that he got married to Geeta Rani (respondent) on 21-11-2001, following Hindu rites, in Haridwar. A fe male child was born out of the wedlock on 29-09-2002. It is further pleaded that petitioner / appellant runs a small gro cery shop in Haridwar and his father who is a retired officer from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, assists him in the business. On the other hand respond ent's mother Bhagwan Devi also used to run her shop of general merchant and. it is alleged that respondent helped in her mother's business. The allegations made in the petition, filed before the trial court, are that after marriage, the re spondent started treating the petitioner with cruelty. She frequently used to leave her husband's house to go to her moth er's house. She used to pour too much chilly and salt in the dishes she prepared. It is also alleged in the petition by ap pellant / husband that he was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by his wife Geeta Rani. The petitioner ap prehended that his life is in danger if he is made to live with his wife. It is also pleaded by the husband that his wife threatens him that if she is made to live in her husband's house she would take poison and commit suicide. It is further pleaded that she threatens to get the parents of the petitioner sent to jail. It is pleaded that respondent left her hus band's house on 16-05-2002 where she delivered the female child on 29-09-2002. Petitioner's case is that he is the only son of his parents who are old aged and suffering from heart ailment. It is further stated in the petition that by fil ing an application under Section 125 'cr. P. C. , the relations between the par ties have further worsened. With these allegations divorce is sought by the pe titioner (present appellant ). The respondent contested the pe tition moved by her husband and filed her written statement before the trial court. She admitted having married to the petitioner. She also admitted having delivered a female child on 29-09-2002 conceived through her husband. It is also admitted that petitioner runs a shop and his father who is a retired officer of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited helps him in his business. However, rest of the contents of the petition as stated are denied by the respondent, who pleaded that she is ready to live with her hus band but she is compelled to leave her husband's house by the petitioner and his parents. It is alleged in the written statement that the petitioner and his parents were not happy with the dowry given by the mother of the respondent in the marriage. It is further pleaded by the respondent that ill treatment on the part of the petitioner against respondent went to the extent of restricting the re spondent even from meeting or talking on phone with her mother. It is further pleaded by the respondent that she never gave any beating nor hurled any abuses at the petitioner. According to the respondent she was forced by her hus band and in-laws on 06-08-2002 to leave her husband's house and as such being helpless she was left with no option but to stay with her mother, who was main taining her and her daughter.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed follow ing issues : (i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? (ii) Whether the petitioner treated the respondent with cruelty? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as claimed ? After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, the trial court found that the respondent has not treated the petitioner with cruelty and as such it dismissed the petitioner for di vorce. Hence this appeal.;