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 :::
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -4-

house of respondent-husband and thereafter, they alongwith PW4-Rajbir

started keeping an eye on the illicit relations of respondent No.1 (appellant-

wife) and respondent No.2.

The respondent-husband appeared as PW6 and gave details of

the illicit relations of his wife with respondent No.2.

PW7-Mohammad Gulab, servant in the house of the

respondent-husband also deposed that respondent No.2 used to visit the

house of the respondent-husband in his absence and used to indulge in

illegal acts.

The respondent-husband placed on record inquiry report

(Ex.P1) to show that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the DSP of the

Haryana Police as also by the CIA Staff. After examination, the Inspector

CIA Staff came to the conclusion that it was a case of adultery. He also

placed on record other documents (Ex.P2 to Ex.P5) to show that appellant-

wife had been making or receiving repeated calls to and from respondent

No.2.

The appellant-wife while appearing as RW1 denied all the

allegations and reiterated the averments made in the written statement.

The respondent-husband had undergone acute mental cruelty as

the behaviour of the appellant-wife was rude and aggressive towards him

and his family members. She kept on saying respondent-husband as

Namard (impotent) and had illicit relations with respondent No.2. On

account of extreme mental cruelty, he left his own home on 22.05.2006.

In this backdrop, issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in favour of

the respondent-husband and he was granted decree of divorce under

Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -5-

In the present appeal, notice of motion was issued on

08.05.2009 and the matter was referred for mediation. As per the report of

the Mediator dated 27.10.2009, the parties could not reach to an amicable

settlement. Thereafter, on 05.07.2019, the appeal was dismissed for want

of prosecution. After allowing CM-16365-CII-2019 on 10.01.2020, the

appeal was restored to its original number and position.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to lead any

evidence which could reverse the finding of extra-marital affairs of

appellant-wife and respondent No.2. The enquiry report (Ex.P1) coupled

with the evidence given by PW4-Rajbir Singh, PW5- Balwinder Singh and

PW7-Mohammad Gulab, servant of the respondent-husband's house

consistently proved that appellant-wife was living in adultery.

The only question for consideration now is whether the

appellant-wife is entitled for permanent alimony.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a judgment

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Sharma vs.

Asha Sharma, 2014(36) R.C.R. (Civil) 812 which cannot be applicable in

the present case for grant of permanent alimony as that was the case where

divorce was granted on the ground of mental cruelty as the wife made a

complaint against her husband and his family members under Sections 406

and 498A IPC. That was not the case of adultery. He has further referred to

a judgment passed by Delhi High Court in Crl.Rev.P. No. 417 of 2021 titled

as Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. Deepika Sharma. Even that case would not

be applicable in the present case as in that case, maintenance was granted to

the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 31.07.2020,

which was being challenged by the petitioner-husband on the ground that

5 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -6-

the respondent-wife was living in adultery. The relevant paras of the

judgment are as under:-

“27. Hence, it is found that the law, as interpreted by the High

Courts of the Country, evinces that only continuous and

repeated acts of adultery and/or cohabitation in adultery would

attract the rigours of the provision under Section 125(4) of the

Cr.P.C. In the instant matter, the petitioner before the learned

Additional Principal Judge sought the non-payment of

maintenance on the ground of adultery under Section 125 (4) of

the Cr.P.C., however, the grounds taken by him did not

establish even prima facie that the respondent was living in

adultery. Even the statement by the son of the parties was made

by after considerable amount of time of the trial had passed and

the respondent had already been cross-examined. Therefore,

the second ground of the petitioner also could not be

established to contend that the respondent was not entitled to

any maintenance.

28. The petitioner has also stated that the respondent had

deserted him and had left his company without any reason. It

is also a fact that the petitioner filed for divorce on the ground

of cruelty, therefore, the learned Additional Principal Judge has

rightly observed that since the petitioner had sought divorce on

the ground of cruelty, he could not have simultaneously urged

that he was aggrieved by the alleged desertion of the

respondent.”

The ground of adultery was taken on the statement of son of the

6 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::
FAO-M-132-2009 (O&M) -7-

parties, Master Pushkar. However, in the divorce petition, the ground for

seeking divorce was cruelty and not adultery.

Learned counsel for the appellant has again referred judgment

passed by Kerala High Court in Valsarajan vs. Saraswathy, 2003(3)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 665. The said judgment is also not applicable to the

present case, as in that case, the wife was living in adultery after divorce

and she was entitled for maintenance. He had further referred judgment

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Subhransu Sarkar vs.

Indrani Sarkar (Nee Das) 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 4301. In the said

case, the appellant was seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and

desertion. The divorce was granted by invoking jurisdiction under Article

142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view that the marriage between

the parties was emotionally dead and there was no point in persuading them

to live together any more. The wife was granted permanent alimony of

Rs.25 lacs towards full and final settlement. Even the said judgment would

not be of any help to the appellant.

Keeping in view the observations made above, the appellant is

not entitled for permanent alimony. Appeal is dismissed. Pending

application, if any, also stands dismissed.

(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE

27.09.2022 (NIDHI GUPTA)

Divyanshi JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2022 05:42:16 :::