FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M)
Reserved on: 31.08.2022
Date of pronouncement: 27.09.2022
Sangeeta Sekhri ....Appellant
Vs.
Sharat Sekhri and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: Appellant in person with
Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 in person with
Mr. Shikhar Sarin, Advocate.
****
Ritu Bahri, J.
The appellant, Sangeeta Sekhri has come up in appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2008 passed by Family Court, Ambala
whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i)
and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed.
The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties
was solemnized on 08.05.1989 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at
Ambala City. The parties lived together as husband and wife. However, no
child was born out of their wedlock. From the day one, the behaviour of
appellant-wife was extremely rude and aggressive. She used to abuse, insult
and humiliate the respondent-husband and his family members. She used to
make taunts on account of the financial position of the respondent- husband and did not stop humiliating him in front of his friends and
family members. The appellant-wife was suffering from some mental
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -2-
disorder to which the respondent-husband got her treated from a
Psychiatrist. Since no issue was born even after ten years of marriage,
appellant-wife started calling the petitioner as Namard (impotent), due to
which the respondent-husband became mentally sick. The appellant-wife
developed intimacy with Sanjeev Pattar (impleaded as respondent No. 2 in
the petition), who was posted as Assistant Superintendent Jail, Central Jail,
Ambala and was residing in the same locality. The respondent-husband left
his house on 22.05.2006 and wrote many letters to Director General of
Police, Inspector General of Police etc. to which inquiry was conducted by
CIA Staff, Ambala alongwith the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala.
During the inquiry, it came out that appellant-wife and Sanjeev Pattar- respondent No.2 used to talk to each other on mobile phones as well as on
the official phone, which indicated that appellant-wife was guilty of treating
the respondent-husband with cruelty and was living in adultery with
Sanjeev Pattar-respondent No.2.
On notice of the petition, the appellant-wife appeared and filed
her written statement denying the allegations of cruelty and adultery.
Respondent No.2 also filed his written statement denying the allegations of
adultery. Separate replications to the written statements were filed by the
respondent-husband.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the respondent No. 1 was living in adultery with
respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether the respondent No. 1 has treated the petitioner
with cruelty, as alleged? OPP.
3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the petitioner is
entitled to the decree of divorce, as prayed for? OPP.
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -3-
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present
form? OPR.
5. Relief.
The respondent-husband examined seven witnesses namely
Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW1), S.D.Khokar (PW2), M.K.Maini (PW3),
Rajbir Singh (PW4), Balwinder Singh (PW5), himself as PW6 and
Mohammad Gulab (PW7). He also produced documentary evidence. The
appellant-wife stepped into the witness box as RW1 and respondent No. 2
did not step into the witness box. Both did not lead any other evidence.
With regard to adultery and cruelty, the respondent-husband
examined PW4-Rajbir Singh who was his friend for the last 21 years. He
had gone to the house of the respondent-husband and when he reached the
bedroom of the respondent-husband, he saw Sangeeta-appellant and another
person in the nude condition. He tried to catch that person but he fled on
the motor cycle. He immediately called the respondent-husband and on his
asking, PW4-Rajbir Singh disclosed that person as Sanjeev Pattar. PW4-
Rajbir Singh also deposed that the respondent-husband left his home and
that appellant-wife used to pick up fight at the shop. Thereafter, PW4-
Rajbir Singh was called to the Municipal Committee by respondent No.2,
his brother and brother-in-law and he was told that illicit relations between
respondent No.1 (appellant-wife) and respondent No. 2 had been formed
with the consent of respondent No.1 and that the dispute could be resolved
mutually.
PW5-Balwinder Singh deposed that he was a friend of the
respondent-husband for the last 20 years. He also deposed about the
quarrels and rude behaviour of the appellant-wife with the respondent- husband and his family members. He had also seen respondent No. 2 in the
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::