Page 1 of 7

FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -1-


FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M)

Reserved on: 31.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 27.09.2022

Sangeeta Sekhri ....Appellant


Sharat Sekhri and another ....Respondents



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 :::

Page 2 of 7

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


From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were


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 :::

Page 3 of 7

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


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 :::

Displaying ph-hc-442225-442238.pdf.