Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.10.2018, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in HMA Petition No. 18/3 of 2017, titled as Shri Anil Kumar Jamwal Vs. Smt. Reena Devi, vide which, a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that appellant-petitioner (husband) {hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'} filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent-Reena Devi as per Hindu Rites on 15.01.2005. They lived peacefully in their village for some time after the marriage and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. After the birth of children, the behavior of the respondent changed towards the appellant and she started abusing, maltreating and misbehaving with the petitioner. On numerous occasions, respondent left the house of the petitioner without any prior permission. On number of occasions, petitioner brought her back from the house of in-laws. He was also maltreated by the parents and brothers of the respondent, who threatened him with dire consequences and also dissuaded him from visiting the house of in-laws. According to the petitioner, on one occasion, the matter was got amicably settled between the parties with the help of nears and dears and respondent came back to her matrimonial house, however, after few days, she again started misbehaving and quarreling with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there was no physical/biological relation between him and the respondent after the birth of their children. Respondent had caused mental as also physical cruelty to the petitioner. During the years 2005 to 2007, petitioner was posted at Jalandhar and w.e.f. 2007 to 2008, he remained posted at Baddi and since then, he was doing a private job at Shimla. Somewhere in the year 2009-2010, on the request of the petitioner, respondent remained with him at Shimla for about 10-15 days, but thereafter she deserted him in the month of January, 2010 and went to her parents house. It was also the case of the petitioner that in the year 2007, his parents had disowned him. His case was that respondent was hand-in-glove with his parents in getting him dis-owned from the property of his parents. His children were also residing with their grandparents. Petitioner was not even being permitted to visit his own house. As the parties were residing separately since last four years as from the date when the petition was filed and there were no chances of re-conciliation between the parties, the petitioner filed a petition praying for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce.

3. The petition was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that it was the petitioner who has failed to maintain the respondent and their children, who were minor and school going. According to the respondent, petitioner had never spent even a single penny towards the education of the children. The factum of ill-treatment of the petitioner at the behest of respondent was emphatically denied. All other allegations levelled in the petition by the petitioner against the respondent were also denied. It was denied that respondent used to leave the matrimonial house without the prior permission of petitioner to go to her parental house. It was also denied that the parents or brothers of the respondent misbehaved with the petitioner or that he was threatened by them, as alleged. As per the respondent, while in Jalandhar, petitioner got entangled with some other girl. He came back at the insistence of his parents and other relatives. Petitioner while in Shimla, was living a life of adultery. It was only on account of his misdeeds that his parents had disowned him and in fact were supporting their daughter-in-law (respondent) and their grandchildren. It was denied that after the birth of the children, there was no physical/biological relation between the parties. As per the respondent, there was physical relation between them even in the month of February, 2015 when the petitioner visited his home. It was also the case of the respondent that petitioner constantly used to visit his parental house. It was denied by the respondent that parties were residing separately for the last four years and according to the respondent, it was the petitioner who was ill-treating and misbehaving with the respondent.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Court below has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the grounds of cruelty OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree on the ground of desertion OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable OPR.

4. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Court as alleged. If so, its effect OPR.

5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition OPR.

6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter OPR.

7. Relief."

5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties in support of their respective claims, the following findings were returned by learned Trial Court on the issues so framed:

6. While dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, learned Court below held that it was not proved on record that the petitioner was treated with cruelty and desertion by the respondent, whereas it had come on record that respondent was residing with her in-laws alongwith children. Learned Court held that there was no convincing ground to infer that the respondent was in the habit of leaving her in-laws' house without intimation and permission nor there was any convincing ground to infer that the respondent had misbehaved with petitioner or ill-treated him. Learned Court also held that it had come on record that the petitioner had been disowned by his parents in the year 2007 and despite this, he was visiting the house of his father. Learned Court held that the petitioner had failed to lead any convincing evidence that respondent acted in a manner, which amounted to cruelty and desertion. It held that petitioner had failed to provide due care to his wife as also children and the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the respondent were not legally proved. On these grounds, learned Court below dismissed the petition.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner has filed the present appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment passed by the learned Court below.

9. To prove his case, petitioner examined five witnesses. His father Gian Singh entered the witness box as PW-1 and stated that respondent (wife) was residing with him and he was also looking after his grandchildren, who were residing with him. This witness also stated that petitioner, who was his son, was not residing with him for the last two years and nine months. He also stated that he had disowned the petitioner from his property by issuing a public notice in this regard.

10. Mother of the petitioner-Pyaro Devi entered the witness box as PW-2 and she also deposed in the Court that the petitioner was not residing in his parental house and that neither her son nor daughter-in-law were under their command. She further stated that the respondent as also her grandchildren were being maintained by them and were residing with them. She also stated that the petitioner who is her son was disowned by them as he had got himself engaged to a girl at Jalandhar in the year 2007 and now his son wanted to marry with some other girl in Shimla.

11. PW-3 Sh. Piar Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kotlu Brahmna has stated in the Court that at the instance of the father of the petitioner, a meeting of the Panchayat was convened with regard to the maintenance of the respondent, however, no meeting was actually held as the petitioner did not turn up before the Panchayat.

12. One Shri Sandeep Kumar, who entered the witness box as PW-4 feigned his ignorance about having any knowledge with regard to the dispute between the parties. He also showed his ignorance to the fact that the petitioner wanted to marry some other girl and therefore, the petitioner had filed the petition for divorce.

13. Petitioner himself entered the witness box as PW-5 and he stated in the Court about the cruelty being meted out to him by the respondent, who was a quarrelsome and abusive lady. He stated in the Court that the respondent used to leave the house of the petitioner and go to her parents house without his consent and since 2010, he was having no physical relations with his wife.

14. Respondent examined Shri Bharat Bhushan as RW-1 and Sh. Bal Chand as RW-2 and both these witnesses deposed that after her marriage, the respondent had resided in her matrimonial house. He had never abused the petitioner. These witnesses deposed that it was the petitioner who was interested in marrying some other girl at Jalandhar and had also performed ring ceremony with another girl despite his being married to the respondent. Shri Ramesh Chand and Mustaq Mohammad entered into the witness box as RW-3 and RW-5. RW-3 Ramesh Chand, who was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhatoli-Kalan stated that in the year 2016, father of respondent had brought into his notice the fact that his daughter was being ill-treated in her in-laws' house and when he met the parents of the petitioner, he was told that the petitioner was neither residing with them nor he was listening to their directions, whereas the respondent was living with them.

15. RW-5 Mustaq Mohammad also stated in the Court that petitioner was interested in marrying some other girl and this was the reason as to why he had filed the divorce petition.

16. Respondent entered the witness box as RW-4 and she stated in the Court that she alongwith her children were residing in the house of her in-laws. She had never left her matrimonial house, as alleged by the petitioner. She further stated that petitioner had in fact committed fraud by getting engaged to another girl at Jalandhar and thereafter, they had shifted to Shimla. She stated that now at Shimla, the petitioner was again interested in marrying another girl and for this reason, he had filed the divorce petition.

17. From the above discussion, certain facts which clearly emerge, are that whereas the respondent is residing with her in-laws with her two minor children, the petitioner is not living with his parents. Petitioner while in Jalandhar had performed a ring ceremony with another girl, despite the fact that he was already married to the respondent. While at Shimla, he was now interested in marrying another girl and for the said purpose, he had initiated divorce proceedings against the respondent. The above noted facts are strengthened by the statements of the parents of the petitioner himself, who entered the witness box as his witnesses. Both these witnesses have deposed that petitioner was not residing with them, he was not listening to them, respondent was residing with them, father-in-law of the respondent was maintaining the respondent as also her two minor children and the petitioner was disowned by the parents, because he had performed a ring ceremony with some other girl at Jalandhar. The petition for divorce was filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty. Onus was upon him to have had proved the ingredients of cruelty, which he miserably failed to prove. This is exactly what has been held by the learned Court below also. Learned Court below by way of a well reasoned judgment has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Learned Court has discussed the entire evidence on record, as also the relevant case law in detail. The findings so returned by the learned Trial Court are duly borne out from the records of the case and this Court concurs with the findings so returned, because in my considered view also, the petitioner has not been able to prove that respondent has subjected him to cruelty, as alleged in the divorce petition. On the contrary, there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the divorce petition was filed by the petitioner so that he could marry some other girl.

18. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity or perversity with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court with reference to the record of the case. Thus, in this view of the matter, as in my considered view, learned Court below has rightly held that the petitioner had not been able to make out any case of cruelty against the respondent, there is no infirmity with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, vide which it has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for grant of divorce. Therefore, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.