IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 128 MOHIT @ MOHIT SHARMA KIRAN CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR Present : Mr HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family which, the petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that all the facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court while dismissing the petition. 3. On being asked to poin into account, learned counsel for the appellant has only stated that the respondent-wife was not willing to bear the child which amount to cruelty. It may be noticed that the marriage between the parties 15.03.2021 and matrimonial dispute arose between the parties within a period of two months and since then, they are living separately. It cannot be said that the argument of the appellant that the wife was not willing to have a baby is IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. Date of decision: MOHIT @ MOHIT SHARMA Versus HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (oral) In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family which, the petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act Learned counsel for the appellant argues that all the facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court while dismissing the On being asked to point out the facts which have not been taken into account, learned counsel for the appellant has only stated that the wife was not willing to bear the child which amount to cruelty. It may be noticed that the marriage between the parties 15.03.2021 and matrimonial dispute arose between the parties within a period of two months and since then, they are living separately. It cannot be said that the argument of the appellant that the wife was not willing to have a baby is IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.5312 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.09.2025 …. Appellant …. Respondent HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI RAMESH KUMARI , Advocate for the appellant. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Camp Court, Pataudi by which, the petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage on the under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, has been Learned counsel for the appellant argues that all the facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court while dismissing the t out the facts which have not been taken into account, learned counsel for the appellant has only stated that the wife was not willing to bear the child which amount to cruelty. It may be noticed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.03.2021 and matrimonial dispute arose between the parties within a period of two months and since then, they are living separately. It cannot be said that the argument of the appellant that the wife was not willing to have a baby is In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated Court, Pataudi by which, the petition filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage on the has been Learned counsel for the appellant argues that all the facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Family Court while dismissing the t out the facts which have not been taken into account, learned counsel for the appellant has only stated that the wife was not willing to bear the child which amount to cruelty. It on 15.03.2021 and matrimonial dispute arose between the parties within a period of two months and since then, they are living separately. It cannot be said that the argument of the appellant that the wife was not willing to have a baby is Jyoti 2025.09.29 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5312 of 2025 correct. Further, the endeavour of the appellant is always to get a divorce and the allegations are being noticed that respondent point of time, she stated that she wanted to increase the family unrebutted. 4. No other argument has been raised. 5. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the order passed by learned Family Court has 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 Jyoti-IV FAO No.5312 of 2025 (O&M) ther, the endeavour of the appellant is always to get a divorce and the allegations are being imputed to make a ground for cruelty. It may be noticed that respondent-wife in the reply, has clearly stated that at no given point of time, she stated that she does not want to have a baby rather she wanted to increase the family. The said fact No other argument has been raised. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the order passed by learned Family Court has been pointed out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI (RAMESH KUMARI , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable : No -2- ther, the endeavour of the appellant is always to get a divorce and to make a ground for cruelty. It may be wife in the reply, has clearly stated that at no given does not want to have a baby rather she . The said fact in her statment has gone No other argument has been raised. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the order passed by been pointed out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes ther, the endeavour of the appellant is always to get a divorce and to make a ground for cruelty. It may be wife in the reply, has clearly stated that at no given does not want to have a baby rather she has gone Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the order passed by ) Jyoti 2025.09.29 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document