Sneh Prashar, J. - (1.) THE petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant -petitioner Smt. Veer Mati for dissolution of her marriage with respondent -Bhola Ram, was dismissed by Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala vide judgment dated 30.03.2013, which had been assailed by the appellant by way of present appeal. The facts gained from the record are as under: - Appellant Smt. Veer Mati was married to the respondent on 06.06.1997 at Tohana, District Jind, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties cohabited together as husband and wife and three children were born out of their wedlock, who had been, at the time of filing the petition, aged 9 years, 7 years and 5 years respectively and were in the custody of respondent -Bhola Ram. The appellant alleged that for some time the behaviour of the respondent with her remained normal but thereafter, being liquor addict he started raising quarrels with her. He and his family members demanded more dowry in the shape of cash amount and valuable articles etc. from her and remarked that she was not a suitable match for him. When she showed inability to meet out their demands, she was given merciless beatings and was turned out of the matrimonial home during the night hours. With the intervention of some respectables the matter was patched up, but there was no change in the attitude of the respondent. He continued to be rude and abusive towards her. It was further submitted by the appellant that the respondent filed a false petition under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing search warrant alleging that she had been kidnapped by one Tarsem Singh, Gurnaib Singh, Jabla Singh sons of Surta Singh and Nirmal Singh son of Bhola Singh. She appeared before the Court of Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat -cum -State Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana and gave statement that she was not in illegal confinement of anyone, rather was voluntarily residing with her parental aunt (father's sister). She also mentioned that she was being beaten by the respondent under the influence of liquor. Finding the petition false, it was dismissed on 26.09.2009. Yet another false First Information Report was lodged by the respondent against Tarsem Singh and others by stating wrong facts. The appellant pleaded that she apprehended danger to her life at the hands of the respondent who had threatened to kill her and that ever since October, 2007 after she was turned out from the matrimonial home, she was residing at Tohana. She had been caused mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and had been deserted by him without any sufficient cause and therefore, it was no longer possible for her to live with him under the same roof. Hence, the appellant prayed for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce.
(2.) RESPONDENT appeared and contested the petition. In the written statement filed by him, he raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the petition, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts by the appellant. Replying on merits, the respondent admitted that the appellant is his legally wedded wife and that three children were born out of their wedlock, who were residing with him, but he altogether denied the allegations of ill treatment levelled by the appellant against him and also denied that he had turned out the appellant from the matrimonial home. He submitted that he was a labourer by profession and was a simple living person. Because of the act and conduct of the appellant his and his children's life had become miserable. He alleged that the instant petition had been filed by the appellant at the instance of Tarsem Singh and others and to his knowledge, she was now pregnant, which was sufficient to show her immoral conduct. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were settled by learned trial court: - i) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP ii) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner? OPP iii) Whether this petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce as prayed for? OPP v) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file this petition? OPR vi) Relief.
(3.) BOTH the parties adduced their respective evidence. Finding that the appellant had failed to prove any act of cruelty on the part of the respondent and the allegation of desertion raised against him was also not true and that she had voluntarily walked out of the house of the respondent, learned trial court dismissed the petition with costs.;