R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) SMT . Mam Kaur, appellant(wife) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1998 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, who dismissed her petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
(2.) IN her petition under Section 13 of the Act Smt. Mam Kaur sought a decree of divorce by inter alia alleging that her marriage with respondent No. 1 was performed in March, 1985 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in village Bargat Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Out of this wedlock no child was born. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 is a greedy person and he wanted to usurp the land owned by her and her mother and that he had been beating them. He even tried to administer poison to the petitioner. It is further averred by the petitioner/appellant that respondent No. 1 has contracted second marriage with respondent No. 2, Parveen, who is being kept by respondent No. 1, in his house as wife and out of this illegal wedlock a female child namely Pooja was born on 5.9.1994. So much so, respondent No. 2 is again pRegulation nt from the loins of respondent No. 1, and in this manner the respondent No. 1 is living in adultery with respondent No. 1 and on this ground also she is entitled to a decree of divorce. It is also the case of the petitioner that since respondent No. 1 is living in adultery with respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 1 has committed an act of cruelty which is an additional ground for divorce. She made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra but to no effect. Notice of the petition was given to respondents. Respondent No. 2 Parveen did not appear before the trial Court in spite of proper service and resultantly she was proceeded ex parte by the trial court on 22.1.1996. The divorce petition was contested by respondent No. 1. According to him, he performed marriage with respondent No. 2 with the consent of the petitioner, who has given affidavit dated 8.2.1995, and, therefore, the petitioner is estopped by saying that respondent No. 1 is living in adultery. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that petitioner was not in a position to conceive a child because she was suffering from epilepsy and she was unable to perform matrimonial obligations due to her physical disability. Respondent No. 1 started residing with petitioner as "Ghar Jawai" and was turned out in August, 1995 and a demand of Rs. 1 lakh was made by the family of the petitioner from the respondent No. 1. According to this respondent the petition is a mala fide affair.
(3.) THE petitioner filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondent No. 1. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the respondent Ram Sarup has treated the petitioner Mam Kaur with cruelty, if so to what effect ? OPP 1(a) Whether the petitioner has not been accessory to or connived at or condoned the acts of respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. Relief." ;