{"id":135760,"date":"2009-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-02T12:18:15","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T06:48:15","slug":"vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009<\/div>\n
FAO No.76-M of 2008                                         1\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                    FAO No.76-M of 2008\n                                    Date of decision: 29.07.2009\n\n\n\nVandana                                               ..Appellant\n\n\n                              Versus\n\n\nDeepak                                                ...Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\n\n\nPresent:-   Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate,\n            with Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate,\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate,\n            with Ms.Prachi Sharma, Advocate,\n            for the respondent.\n\n                        ---\n<\/pre>\n
      1.    Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
\n            be allowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
       2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n<\/p>\n
       3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in
\n            Digest?\n<\/p>\n
                        —\n<\/p>\n
VINOD K. SHARMA,J.(oral)<\/p>\n
            Appellant\/wife has filed this appeal against the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 13.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
(Fast Track Court) Ambala, decreeing the petition filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short<\/p>\n
the Act) seeking a decree of divorce.\n<\/p>\n
            Pleaded case of the husband\/respondent was that the marriage<\/p>\n
between the parties was solemnized         on 31.1.1990 at Ambala Cantt<\/p>\n
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties<\/p>\n
cohabited and lived together and out of this wed-lock 4 children i.e. three<\/p>\n
daughters and one son were born. Daughter named Ashta was born on<\/p>\n
1.2.1991, whereas daughter Prerna was born on 24.6.93 and daughter Kripa<\/p>\n
and son Jawanshu were born as twins on 25.3.2000. Appellant\/wife was<\/p>\n
stated to be   spend-thrift. After the marriage the parties resided at the<\/p>\n
parental house of the respondent\/\/husband at 154 Mahesh Nagar, Ambala<\/p>\n
Cantt for few months only. The mother of the appellant was said to be<\/p>\n
interfering in the matrimonial life of the     parties, and further that the<\/p>\n
appellant was also towing the lines of her mother.\n<\/p>\n
            It was also the case of the respondent\/husband that          the<\/p>\n
appellant\/wife started pressurizing the respondent\/husband to have          a<\/p>\n
separate residence away from his parents.        Constant interference and<\/p>\n
wasteful expenditure habits of the wife started creating tension in the<\/p>\n
family, and ultimately the husband got separated from his parents and took a<\/p>\n
house on rent in Arya Nagar. The case set up by respondent was that in spite<\/p>\n
of separate residence parents of the appellant continued interfering in the<\/p>\n
matrimonial life. The respondent\/husband claimed that he had sufficient<\/p>\n
means and therefore, was providing all comforts of life to the appellant\/wife<\/p>\n
but her demands increased day by day. When objected to, she started
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
insulting the respondent. It was also the case of the husband that the mother<\/p>\n
of the respondent\/wife was against the marriage and she was looking for an<\/p>\n
opportunity to let down the respondent\/husband, but the respondent had<\/p>\n
been tolerating all this with a hope, that after birth of the children there<\/p>\n
would be sea change in the nature of the respondent. However, she did not<\/p>\n
change even after the birth of first child rather humiliation increased to the<\/p>\n
extent that the landlord got the house vacated. The respondent\/husband kept<\/p>\n
on changing the rented accommodation. From Arya Nagar they shifted to<\/p>\n
the area of Janak Puri, where parties lived for about one year. Again on<\/p>\n
account of the attitude of the appellant\/wife they had to shift to another<\/p>\n
rented accommodation. Therefrom also they had to shift because of the<\/p>\n
attitude of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             It was on account of the act and conduct of the appellant, and<\/p>\n
her mother’s attitude, that the respondent was compelled to convene a<\/p>\n
panchayat comprising Shri R.S.Walia and Shri Vinod Walia in May, 1994.<\/p>\n
In the panchayat father of the appellant apologized for the acts of the<\/p>\n
appellant and promised that his wife i.e. the mother of the appellant would<\/p>\n
not interfere in the matrimonial life of the respondent. It was also decided<\/p>\n
in the panchayat     that the parties would shift to parental house of the<\/p>\n
respondent but in spite of settlement the appellant again started creating<\/p>\n
scenes, and the visits of the mother of the appellant became a routine affair.<\/p>\n
Both the mother and the appellant humiliated the respondent. It was also the<\/p>\n
case of the respondent\/husband that he was being pressured to claim share<\/p>\n
in the parental property. It was on account of this that he again had to shift<\/p>\n
to House No.182, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. The case set up further was
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
that his parents refused to accept the demand of the respondent, for share,<\/p>\n
then the appellant\/wife along with her mother hatched a conspiracy and got<\/p>\n
lodged FIR No.85 dated 23.5.1996 against the respondent\/husband as well<\/p>\n
as his younger brother Neeraj for alleged commission of offences under<\/p>\n
sections 304B\/511\/306\/511\/498A\/406 IPC with         Police station Mahesh<\/p>\n
Nagar. In the FIR, the respondent and his brother were arrested and released<\/p>\n
on bail. They also faced agony of trial for about 3 years. However, they<\/p>\n
were finally acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala on 15.6.1999.<\/p>\n
On 12.6.1999 the appellant executed a writing admitting therein that she<\/p>\n
had realized her mistake in lodging the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
            The case set up, therefore, was that after deserting the<\/p>\n
respondent for more than 3 years, the appellant joined the matrimonial home<\/p>\n
in June, 1999 in rented house at Jain Nagar, Ambala Cantt but there was no<\/p>\n
change in her attitude and her aggression continued. The appellant used to<\/p>\n
visit beauty parlour at least twice in a week and was wasting the money on<\/p>\n
clothes. On account of her habits the respondent became indebted to his<\/p>\n
various friends and whenever she was checked to curtail expenses she used<\/p>\n
to create scenes which resulted in the landlord asking them to vacate the<\/p>\n
premises. The respondent\/husband purchased House No.137, Durga Nagar,<\/p>\n
Ambala Cantt in his name, after raising a loan on which the appellant\/wife<\/p>\n
misbehaved with him and slapped him in the presence of Uttam Rishi and<\/p>\n
Parvinder for not having got executed the sale deed in her name. He claimed<\/p>\n
that he was pushed out of the house and gate was locked from inside and<\/p>\n
not permitted entry the house. The appellant was said to have gone to Bias<\/p>\n
without informing the respondent and that the respondent had to take
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
shelter in the house of friends. The respondent\/husband complained about<\/p>\n
the conduct of the appellant to her mother and father, but they showed their<\/p>\n
helplessness. The appellant and her mother were alleged to have given him<\/p>\n
beating for not transferring the house in the name of the appellant. This all<\/p>\n
was claimed to have been tolerated by the respondent for the sake of<\/p>\n
children. A complaint was also made to Superintendent of Police, Ambala<\/p>\n
and a compromise was executed on 27.10.2004.\n<\/p>\n
            The case further set up was that even after the compromise<\/p>\n
there was no change in the habits and she continued insulting the<\/p>\n
respondent husband. A demand of Rs.2 lacs was raised for opening a<\/p>\n
boutique, but as the respondent was unable to arrange that amount as he was<\/p>\n
paying instalments of the house loan, the behaviour of the appellant became<\/p>\n
worst and she even refused to cook the meals. She further started locking<\/p>\n
the gate in the evening and respondent had to take shelter in the house of<\/p>\n
his friends. It was further pleaded that on 20.4.2005 the appellant and her<\/p>\n
mother asked the respondent for a sum of Rs.2 lacs and on his refusal he<\/p>\n
was pushed out of the house.\n<\/p>\n
            It was also pleaded that in view of the acts of the appellant the<\/p>\n
health of the respondent deteriorated and he consumed sleeping pills to<\/p>\n
commit suicide. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ambala, where neither<\/p>\n
the appellant nor her parents came to see him. The case set up by respondent<\/p>\n
was that the appellant was       in the habit of harassing, torturing and<\/p>\n
humiliating him and making false allegations and complaint against him. It<\/p>\n
was pleaded that the acts of cruelty were not condoned, in any manner.<\/p>\n
            Notice of the petition was given. The petition was contested by
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
the appellant\/wife by pleading that the petition        was not framed in<\/p>\n
accordance with the law and rules. Petition was said to be mala fide one. It<\/p>\n
was pleaded that the respondent was trying to take benefit of his own<\/p>\n
wrong. The case set up by the appellant\/wife was that the respondent after<\/p>\n
compromising the matter before the Biradari, as well as the police gave in<\/p>\n
writing on 30.6.1995 that he will respect the appellant in future and will pay<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.10,000\/- per month to her as well to his children. Instead of<\/p>\n
complying with the said compromise the petition for divorce was filed.<\/p>\n
            It was also the case of the appellant that the respondent\/<\/p>\n
husband wanted to marry again, and spoil life of another lady.          Other<\/p>\n
averments made in the petition were denied. The case set up was that the<\/p>\n
respondent is addicted to liquor and used to come late to house under the<\/p>\n
influence of liquor, and to create a scene which compelled the parties to<\/p>\n
change accommodation one after the other. Factum of lodging of FIR was<\/p>\n
admitted, but it was submitted that subsequently compromise was arrived at<\/p>\n
and therefore, the appellant did not lead any evidence, and the respondent<\/p>\n
and his brother were acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
            It was admitted that Durga Nagar house was purchased in the<\/p>\n
name of the respondent, but it was asserted that funds for purchase of house<\/p>\n
were made available by the father of the appellant. It was also admitted that<\/p>\n
the house was mortgaged with the bank. It was              asserted that the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband was creating evidence to get rid of the appellant. Stand<\/p>\n
was taken that the appellant was rightly prosecuted for causing mental and<\/p>\n
physical cruelty to the appellant but she forgave the respondent to save the<\/p>\n
matrimonial life for the sake of children. The prayer was made for dismissal
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
             In the replication, the averments made in the petition were<\/p>\n
reiterated and those made in the written statement were denied. On the<\/p>\n
pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-<\/p>\n
             1.    Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce<\/p>\n
                   on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1) of the Hindu<\/p>\n
                   Marriage Act as alleged? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2.    Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2.    Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In support of the assertion made in the petition the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband appeared as his own witness and did not produce any<\/p>\n
other witness. The appellant appeared into the witness box and closed the<\/p>\n
evidence without leading any other evidence.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned matrimonial court referred to the judgment of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of A Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur 2005 (1)<\/p>\n
CCC 402, wherein it has been laid down that the cruelty has to be<\/p>\n
considered in the light of norms of marital ties of the particular society to<\/p>\n
which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which<\/p>\n
they live, and that the cruelty can be physical or mental.            The act<\/p>\n
complained of must be something more serious than the ordinary wear and<\/p>\n
tear of married life. Cruelty is to be understood in the ordinary sense of the<\/p>\n
term in matrimonial affairs and if the intention of the party is to cause harm,<\/p>\n
harassment or hurt which could be inferred by nature of the conduct or<\/p>\n
brutal act complained of, cruelty can be easily established. The absence of<\/p>\n
intention does not make any difference, and there may be instance of cruelty
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
by unintentional but inexcusable conduct of a party. Cruelty largely depends<\/p>\n
upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and<\/p>\n
social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach<\/p>\n
importance. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute<\/p>\n
cruelty, and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immensurable mental<\/p>\n
agony and torture may well constitute cruelty. Mental cruelty may consist of<\/p>\n
verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to<\/p>\n
constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.<\/p>\n
             On the principle of law referred to above, learned matrimonial<\/p>\n
court held that the allegations levelled in the petition were vague which<\/p>\n
were otherwise denied by the appellant\/wife. The learned matrimonial court<\/p>\n
held that there were allegations and counter allegations against each other<\/p>\n
without there being any substantive proof. Allegations were general as no<\/p>\n
specific date or instance was given in the petition or in the written<\/p>\n
statement, the learned court, therefore, ignored the allegations of cruelty.<\/p>\n
             The learned matrimonial court was of the view, that it was<\/p>\n
admitted fact that FIR No.85 dated 23.5.1996 was got registered against the<\/p>\n
respondent as well as his younger brother under sections 304-B\/511,<\/p>\n
306\/511 and 406\/498-A IPC in which the respondent as well as his brother<\/p>\n
were tried. It was after 2\u00bd years of agony that the respondent and his<\/p>\n
brother were acquitted. The appellant had supported the version of the<\/p>\n
prosecution but in cross-examination she showed volte face which resulted<\/p>\n
in acquittal. Learned matrimonial court, therefore, came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that initiation of criminal proceedings which were found to be false,<\/p>\n
amounted to cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
 FAO No.76-M of 2008                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
            The plea that the case was not contested in view of the<\/p>\n
compromise Ex.P.2 was not accepted. The learned court was further pleased<\/p>\n
to hold that if compromise Ex.P.2 is meticulously gone through it would<\/p>\n
reveal that the appellant had stated that she had realized her mistake and<\/p>\n
decided to withdraw the case got registered by her. The learned court further<\/p>\n
held that in the compromise the respondent had agreed to have a separate<\/p>\n
residence and decided that he would be residing with the appellant.<\/p>\n
            Learned matrimonial court, therefore, placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in the case of Poonam Kaur Vs. Jagjit Singh 2006<\/p>\n
(1) MLJ 285, wherein this court has been pleased to lay down as under:-<\/p>\n
            “33. As to what constitutes condonation as envisaged under<\/p>\n
            Section 23 (1)(b) of the Act has no where been elaborated<\/p>\n
            under the Act. Condonation is a conditional waiver of the right<\/p>\n
            of the injured spouse to take matrimonial proceedings and it<\/p>\n
            does not amount to forgiveness in the ordinary parlance.<\/p>\n
            Normally condonation carries with it a rider that the injury<\/p>\n
            shall not be repeated. Condonation cannot be taken to be an<\/p>\n
            absolute and unconditional forgiveness. Therefore, in case the<\/p>\n
            matrimonial offence is repeated even after an act of<\/p>\n
            condonation on the part of the spouse, it gets revived on the<\/p>\n
            commission of subsequent act resulting in matrimonial<\/p>\n
            disharmony. The spouse who has earlier condoned the cruelty<\/p>\n
            in order to bring harmony in the matrimonial alliance cannot be<\/p>\n
            put at disadvantage due to unadjustable and cruel behaviour or<\/p>\n
            a commission of marital offence by the erring spouse.”
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
and thus, held that the cruelty stood proved.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned matrimonial court also held that though irretrievably<\/p>\n
broken down marriage is not one of the statutory grounds on which the<\/p>\n
court could direct the dissolution of marriage but still in extreme cases the<\/p>\n
court can direct dissolution of marriage on this ground. Reliance in this<\/p>\n
regard was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
A Jayachandra Vs. Aneel Kaur (supra), and the judgment of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli 2006 (2)<\/p>\n
CCC 226.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned matrimonial court decided issue No.1 in favour of<\/p>\n
the respondent\/husband, whereas issue No.2 was decided against the<\/p>\n
appellant. Consequently, a decree of divorce was passed in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.Sanjay Majithia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the appellant vehemently contended that the judgment and decree passed<\/p>\n
by the learned court below deserves to be set aside for the simple reason<\/p>\n
that act of cruelty in lodging of FIR stood condoned by the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband as subsequent to his acquittal in terms of the<\/p>\n
compromise entered into between the parties      they cohabited as husband<\/p>\n
and wife and twins were born thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
            Other allegations of cruelty were not accepted by the learned<\/p>\n
matrimonial court itself and therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
            Learned senior counsel for the appellant referred to the<\/p>\n
agreement entered into between the parties on 12.6.1999 during the<\/p>\n
pendency of criminal case. The compromise entered into between the parties
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            ”      That both the parties have agreed and decided to<\/p>\n
            cooperative with each and it has also been decided that party of<\/p>\n
            Ist part shall take separate from her parents accommodation and<\/p>\n
            shall keep the party of second part and the children with all<\/p>\n
            love and affection.\n<\/p>\n
                   That the parents of either party shall not interfere in any<\/p>\n
            manner in the affairs of parties to this agreement.”<\/p>\n
            In pursuance to the agreement the appellant\/wife did not<\/p>\n
support the prosecution which resulted in acquittal of the respondent and his<\/p>\n
brother. He referred to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Ambala, acquitting the respondent\/husband. The operative part of which<\/p>\n
reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “10. Vandana (PW-1) is the complainant and wife of accused<\/p>\n
            Deepak Ailawadi. Although, in examination-in-chief she has<\/p>\n
            supported the prosecution story, yet,      when she was cross-<\/p>\n
            examined on behalf of the accused, she took a summer-sault<\/p>\n
            and stated that theirs was a love marriage and her husband and<\/p>\n
            his relations never demanded any dowry from her nor her<\/p>\n
            husband ever gave her beatings and that on 22.5.1996 she was<\/p>\n
            not feeling well and therefore, she was taken to the hospital by<\/p>\n
            her neighbours that Deepak never asked her to take compose<\/p>\n
            tablets and that they both are living separately from her parents-<\/p>\n
            in-law since 1991. It is then stated by her that she gave her<\/p>\n
            earlier statement under some misunderstanding and under the
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
              pressure of the police and that she did not make any statement<\/p>\n
              before the police and her signatures were obtained on blank<\/p>\n
              papers. This witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the<\/p>\n
              learned public Prosecutor, but even then she did not support<\/p>\n
              the prosecution story. It is a well settled principle of law that<\/p>\n
              veracity of a witness is tested during cross-examination and if<\/p>\n
              during cross-examination, a witness does not support the<\/p>\n
              prosecution story, then even through\/she supports the<\/p>\n
              prosecution in examination-in-chief, the prosecution cannot<\/p>\n
              take any help from the same. Therefore, in this case, as<\/p>\n
              Vandana (PW 1) has not supported the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
              during her cross-examination, her statement is of no help to the<\/p>\n
              prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Manmohan Walia<\/p>\n
              (PW 5) is father of Vandana and he has not supported the<\/p>\n
              prosecution story at all, although he was allowed to be cross-<\/p>\n
              examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. It may be stated<\/p>\n
              here that other two material witnesses in the case namely<\/p>\n
              Karuna Devi, mother of Vandana and, Ranjit Singh, neighbour<\/p>\n
              of Vandana, were given up by the prosecution as having been<\/p>\n
              won over by the accused. Thus, there is noting on the file which<\/p>\n
              could connect any of the two accused with the offences for<\/p>\n
              which they have been charged.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It is, thus, contended that the appellant\/wife in order to save the<\/p>\n
matrimonial     home stood     by the compromise and as already observed<\/p>\n
above, the husband also accepted the compromise and the parties cohabited
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
as husband and wife after compromise and twins were born. Therefore,<\/p>\n
there can be no doubt that the act of cruelty stood condoned. Findings of the<\/p>\n
learned matrimonial court on issue No.1, therefore, cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
            Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respondent supported the judgment and decree by asserting,<\/p>\n
that it was the cumulative effect of the acts which was required to be seen.<\/p>\n
The evidence and pleadings of the parties proved the allegations that the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband was treated with cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned senior counsel contended that specific pleadings were<\/p>\n
made with regard to the false prosecution, by the appellant which fact was<\/p>\n
admitted in the written statement. It is further the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
senior counsel that specific averments with regard to the cruelty were also<\/p>\n
levelled in the pleadings which were duly supported in evidence, therefore,<\/p>\n
it could not be said that the allegations of cruelty were vague and were not<\/p>\n
specific.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned senior counsel for the respondent further contended<\/p>\n
that even single act of cruelty was sufficient for decree of divorce.<\/p>\n
            The factum of launching prosecution coupled with behaviour of<\/p>\n
the appellant was sufficient to hold that the      findings recorded by the<\/p>\n
learned matrimonial court,      calls for no interference. It was further<\/p>\n
contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the marriage<\/p>\n
having been irretrievably broken down, no ground is made to interfere with<\/p>\n
the judgment and decree.\n<\/p>\n
            The finding of the learned matrimonial court that the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband was entitled to decree of divorce on the ground of
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
irretrievably broken down marriage, also deserves to be set aside in view of<\/p>\n
the law laid own by this court in the case of Gurdeep Singh alias Tota<\/p>\n
Singh Vs. Jaspal Kaur 2009 (1) RCR (C) 593, wherein, after considering<\/p>\n
the law on the point, it has been laid, that     irretrievably broken down<\/p>\n
marriage is no ground for grant of divorce.\n<\/p>\n
             On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             Reading of the compromise and the order passed by the<\/p>\n
criminal court, coupled with the fact that     parties   started residing as<\/p>\n
husband and wife and twins were born, leaves no manner of doubt that the<\/p>\n
act of cruelty complained stood condoned, and therefore, could not be a<\/p>\n
ground to grant divorce. The other allegations levelled qua cruelty were not<\/p>\n
proved on record. Instances referred to by respondent\/husband as pleaded,<\/p>\n
show that these were not specific and lacked material particulars,<\/p>\n
furthermore these were not proved by the respondent by leading<\/p>\n
independent evidence. In the pleadings he named certain persons in whose<\/p>\n
presence he was said to have been humiliated, but none was produced to<\/p>\n
support his version. Except for his bald statement, no evidence was brought<\/p>\n
on record, in support of the allegations.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned matrimonial court, therefore, rightly held that the<\/p>\n
allegations with regard to the habit of wasteful expenditure, and her living<\/p>\n
levish life, and that in order to lead such life she was demanding money<\/p>\n
repeatedly from the respondent, and that she was playing in the hands of her<\/p>\n
mother, who was interfering in their matrimonial home, and further that he<\/p>\n
was slapped and given beating by the appellant were not proved. These
\n FAO No.76-M of 2008                                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
were specifically denied. Similarly, assertions made by the wife were also<\/p>\n
rejected for want of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
              As observed above, divorce could not be granted on an act of<\/p>\n
cruelty which stood condoned. Finding by the learned matrimonial court on<\/p>\n
issue No.1, is, therefore, reversed.\n<\/p>\n
              Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree<\/p>\n
passed by the learned matrimonial court is set aside, and the petition filed by<\/p>\n
the respondent\/husband under section 13 of the Act          is ordered to be<\/p>\n
dismissed, but with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
29.07. 2009                                  ( VINOD K. SHARMA )\nrp                                                JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 FAO No.76-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.76-M of 2008 Date of decision: 29.07.2009 Vandana ..Appellant Versus Deepak …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present:- Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T06:48:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T06:48:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3787,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T06:48:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T06:48:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T06:48:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009"},"wordCount":3787,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009","name":"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T06:48:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vandana-vs-deepak-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vandana vs Deepak on 29 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}