2025:HHC:34092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 114 of 2018 Date of decision: 08.10.2025. Saroj Katoch …Appellant versus Swaroop Chand Katoch …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Vishwal Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. V. B. Verma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): This appeal has been preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmshala in Case No. RBT HMP No. 69-B/III/2010. 2. On the petition of the husband filed under Section 13 (1) (ia)of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned trial Court has passed a decree of dissolution of marriage between the parties on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of appeal are that the parties are Hindus by religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 6.8.1993 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The parties have two children out of the wedlock. 4. The petition seeking divorce was filed by the husband in the year 2010 with the allegations that the wife had been residing separately without any justifiable cause since 2004. In the petition, the husband highlighted various instances, which according to him, constituted mental cruelty. According to husband, the wife had been exhibiting cruel behaviour towards the husband and his family members right from the beginning of the married life. Her behaviour and approach was alleged as casual. She allegedly had been callous and lazy even in taking care of minor child. 5. It was alleged that in 1995, the wife had withdrawn her from the society of the husband and had returned to the house of her parents along with minor daughter. She allegedly had taken along with her all valuables. With the intervention of parents and relatives of the parties, a compromise was effected and the wife had returned to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, second child was born. During pregnancy of the wife, every care was provided by the husband. However, the wife continued with her odd behaviour. She started making -3- demands for new things. Despite fulfillment of the demands of wife by the husband, she was never satisfied. 6. It was further the case of husband that in the year 2004, the wife wished to join B.Ed Course, to which, the husband readily agreed and provided financial assistance. The wife parted with the company of the husband in 2005 on false allegations and thereafter had not cared to join the matrimonial house despite various efforts made by the husband through institutions like Panchayat and other social groups active in the village. 7. On14.10.2006, a compromise was effected between the parties whereby the wife had agreed to join the company of her husband at matrimonial house but she did not honour the agreement. 8. The wife by filing reply to the petition had denied all the allegations save and except that she was residing separately since 2005. As per wife, she wanted to live with her husband but the circumstances created by the husband and his family members were not congenial and for such reason, she was forced to leave the house. Allegations of maltreatment against the husband and his family members were also made. 9. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- -4- “1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP 2) Whether the petitioner is deserted by respondent without any reasonable cause, as alleged? OPP 3) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4) Whether petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present petition? OPR 5) Relief.” 10. Issues No. 1 and 2 have been decided in affirmative whereas issues No. 3 and 4 have been decided in negative. Resultantly, the petition has been allowed on both the grounds i.e. cruelty and desertion. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 12. The husband examined himself as his own witness and in addition, the sister of the husband also stepped into the witness box to support the case of her brother. Documents Ext. PW1/B to PW1/D were also placed on record by the husband to corroborate his version. The wife examined herself as her sole witness. 13. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that there was no justifiable reason for the wife to live separately for such a long period and on that count, the wife has been found to have deserted the husband -5- and such conduct of wife has further been held amounting to cruelty. 14. The wife has clearly admitted in her cross- examination that since 2005, she has been living separately in a rented accommodation at Baijnath. Her version is that she has been forced to live separately. The wife admitted that on 14.10.2006, a compromise Ext. PW1/B was effected between the parties and in compliance to its terms, she had joined the company of the husband in matrimonial house but she had again been turned out of house due to the cruel behaviour of the husband and his family members. 15. Except for the self-serving statement of wife, there is no corroborative material available on record. There is nothing on record to suggest that between 2005 to 2010, when the petition for divorce was filed, the wife had made any complaint against the husband regarding his alleged indecent and cruel behaviour. It is hard to believe that the wife had joined the company of the husband after the compromise Ext. PW1/B, because had she done so and had she been turned out of the house thereafter, it would have been natural for her to make some complaint to any of the authorities. 16. Another fact that cannot be ignored is that the wife had filed a complaint under Protection of Women from -6- Domestic Violence Act in the Court of competent jurisdiction but the order passed by the said Court has not been shown the light of the day. Thus, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the wife and it can be presumed that the allegation of domestic violence against the husband had not been established by her. That being so, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The wife has miserably failed to establish any reason much less any justifiable reason for living separately. 17. So far as the conduct of the husband is concerned, the wife herself had admitted that he had tried to take the custody of both the children and thereafter one child was residing with the husband and the other with the wife. This shows that the husband did not have the intent to abandon his relations with the children, rather he was forced to file the petition for divorce by the circumstances created by the wife. 18. In result, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 8th October, 2025 Judge (kck)