- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23. 04. 2008, passed by Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, in Suit No. 11 of 2006, whereby the appellant's petition for di vorce, moved under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is dismissed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Surjeet Singh got married to respondent Smt. Paramjit Kaur on 02. 06. 1996 according to Sikh rites. Out of the wedlock two daughters, namely, Sifat Kaur and Achint Kaur were born in the year 1999 and 2000 respectively. The appellant's case is that the respond ent treated him with cruelty. It is further pleaded that the respondent left the house of the petitioner (present appel lant) on 15. 06. 2002, without any rhyme and reason and started living with her parents, whereafter, she did not return to her matrimonial house. It is also pleaded by the appellant in the petition, moved under Section 13 of Hindu Mar riage Act, 1955, that the appellant suf fered serious illness and had to be ad mitted twice in the Hospital but the re spondent never cared to see him. It is further stated that on 08. 03. 2004, the respondent allegedly lodged a false First Information Report against the appellant and members of his family relating to of fence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506,406/34 I. P. C. . Apart from this, the respondent further filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Proce dure, 1973, which was decided on 24. 10. 2005. Alleging that the appellant has undergone cruelty at the hands of the respondent, the divorce was sought on that ground. Respondent contested the petition for divorce moved by the appellant and filed the written statement before the trial court. In the written statement, it is admitted to the respondent that she got married to the appellant and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. However, she has denied other contents of the divorce petition and it is pleaded that the answering respondent was har assed by the appellant and his parents for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry made by them. It is denied that the re spondent treated the petitioner with cru elty. However, it is admitted that since 15. 06. 2002, the respondent is living with her parents, but it is alleged that she was forced to leave her husband's house.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed follow ing issues :- (i) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and was he subjected to mental torture? (ii) To what relief, if any, the peti tioner is entitled? Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence before the trial court and said court after hearing the parties decided the above mentioned is sues against the petitioner (present appel lant) and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal by the husband.;