PARVEEN KUMARI Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 16/11/2019, as handed down by learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Gurdaspur, whereby the petition, as preferred by respondent no. 1-husband (here-in-after referred to as 'the husband') against the appellant-wife (here-in-after referred to as 'the wife') alongwith respondent no.2, under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for seeking dissolution of their marriage, was allowed, the wife has chosen to prefer the instant appeal.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual matrix, as canvassed by the husband (petitioner before the Court below) in the petition, is that the marriage between him and respondent no.1, i.e. the wife, was solemnized on 17/11/2012 at Dina Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and one male child namely Harsh Angurala was born out of their wedlock who was residing with the wife. Since the very beginning of their marital life, the behaviour of his wife was not good towards him and his family members and she used to misbehave with them. She had also been compelling him to shift to Gurdaspur and on his refusal for the same, she used to create scene and to use abusive language for him and his family members in the presence of their co-villagers. Ultimately, in order to save his marital life, he shifted to Gurdaspur in October, 2013.

(3.) The husband, further, averred that the wife used to talk to the strangers during late hours at night and on his raising objection for the same, she told him that it was none of his business. He even purchased a plot at Mukerian Road in the name of his wife to make her feel and realize his love and affection for her. However, on 20/10/2016, respondent no.2 (impleaded as such in the petition also) disclosed to him about his having an affair with the wife since 2008 which was continuing even after the solemnization of his (husband's) marriage with the wife. Respondent no.2 further told him that the wife was also having extra-marital relations with another person who was her colleague at the school where she was working as a Senior Lab Attendant. He (the husband) also recorded the conversation between him and respondent no.2 which suggested the adulterous relations between the wife and respondent no.2. Moreover, respondent no.2 sent several pictures to him reflecting the relations between him and the wife. Screen-shots of the chat between the wife and respondent no.2 were annexed with the petition.