JUDGMENT Mrs. Sneh Prashar, J.:- By way of this appeal, Mandeep Kaur-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as “the appellant”) assailed the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Jalandhar, allowing the petition in H.M.A. case No.100 dated 30.09.2005 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”) filed by her husband Dharminder Singh petitioner- respondent. 2. The relevant facts extracted from the record are as under:- Mandeep Kaur (appellant) and Dharminder Singh (respondent) were married on 28.11.2003 as per Sikh religious rites and ceremonies i.e. ‘Anand Karaj’ at Rayia Mandi, District Amritsar. After marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife at Jalandhar and a son namely, Ekjot was born out of the wedlock on 28.01.2004. The son was since residing with appellant Mandeep Kaur. Filing a petition for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce Dharminder Singh alleged that soon after marriage he was told by Mandeep Kaur that his status was not according to her choice and she was not happy with him. She also put a condition that unless he lives separate from his parents she will not reside with him. He tried to make her understand that his parents were old and required proper care but she bluntly refused to live with them. She also started abusing and insulting his parents in front of relatives and friends. After about a month of the marriage under pressure of Mandeep Kaur, he started living separate from his parents, but her behaviour did not change and she continued to harass and torture him on trivial matters. She even levelled false allegation of adultery against him. In March, 2004, she left home in his absence and without his consent and when on the same day he went to bring her back he was insulted by her mother in most filthy language and she refused to accompany him. Later, when he convened a Panchayat, she returned to the matrimonial home but after few days her behaviour again became rude and harsh towards him. She refused to cook food and attend to the household work. In the month of July, 2004, she left the matrimonial home without informing him and took away with her all jewellery and other valuable clothes etc. given to her by his parents at the time of their marriage. She refused to cook food and attend to the household work. In the month of July, 2004, she left the matrimonial home without informing him and took away with her all jewellery and other valuable clothes etc. given to her by his parents at the time of their marriage. He made all efforts to bring her back but she flatly refused to live with him and since then was residing at her parental home. 3. It was further pleaded by Shri Dharminder Singh that in the month of September, 2004, a suspicion arose in his mind that his wife Mandeep Kaur was suffering from some serious disease. He tried to enquire about her health but her family did not disclose anything to him. On 20.09.2005, he was able to lay hand on some medical reports of Mandeep Kaur and to his surprise he came to know that she was suffering from HIV virus. She had undergone a test for the virus in Guru Tej Rasila Hospital, Dera Baba Teja Singh Trust Regd. VPO Saidpur, District Amritsar on 07.09.2004. The report of the said hospital confirmed that she was suffering from HIV positive. Again she got conducted test by Dr. Karamjit Singh Gill, Pathologist (M.D.) in Nijjar Lab and Diagnostic Centre, 51/1, Court Road, Opposite Church, near G.P.O., Amritsar and as per his report also she was HIV positive patient. Same was the report given by the doctor of Bhandari Hospital, Majitha Road, Amritsar. Submitting that he had been treated with cruelty and that it was no longer safe for him to live with Mandeep Kaur, Dharminder Singh prayed for dissolution of their marriage. 4. Appellant-wife Mandeep Kaur contested the petition. In the written statement filed by her, she denied all allegations levelled by her husband Dharminder Singh and submitted that the petition for divorce had been filed by him only as a counter blast to the petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and also the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance allowance, filed by her at Amritsar. She also alleged that the petition for divorce had been filed with a malafide intention to harass her. According to Mandeep Kaur, from the very early days of marriage, her husband Dharminder Singh and his family members had started harassing and maltreating her for bringing insufficient dowry. She also alleged that the petition for divorce had been filed with a malafide intention to harass her. According to Mandeep Kaur, from the very early days of marriage, her husband Dharminder Singh and his family members had started harassing and maltreating her for bringing insufficient dowry. They raised illegal demand for additional dowry and when she was unable to fulfil the same, a number of times she was turned out of the matrimonial home. With the intervention of relatives and respectables of the locality she used to return to her in-laws’ place but there was no change in their behaviour. Importantly, Mandeep Kaur admitted that the pregnancy test undergone by her revealed that she was affected by HIV positive virus. She alleged that her husband Dharminder Singh was earlier working as a driver with a transport company and because he was affected with the HIV virus the disease got transmitted to her through him. Her parents asked him to undergo the test to know his physical position but he did not listen to them. When his family came to know about her disease they gave her merciless beatings and threw her out of the house alongwith her minor child in three wearing apparels on 23.01.2005 and since then she was residing at her parental home. Her husband Dharminder Singh wilfully neglected and deserted her without any reasonable cause. Submitting that she did not want to break the nuptial tie and was still ready to live with her husband, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent Mandeep Kaur is suffering from HIV virus disease, if so its effect? OPR. (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. (4) Relief. 6. Both the parties adduced evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. 7. Considering the evidence and the arguments addressed, learned trial Court, allowed the petition and accordingly, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of appellant Mandeep Kaur with Dharminder Singh-respondent, was passed. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2009, Mandeep Kaur preferred the instant appeal. 9. We have heard the submissions made by Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. G.S. Jaswal, learned counsel representing the respondent. 10. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2009, Mandeep Kaur preferred the instant appeal. 9. We have heard the submissions made by Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. G.S. Jaswal, learned counsel representing the respondent. 10. Dharminder Singh sought a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with appellant Mandeep Kaur on mainly two grounds; (i) that the behaviour of Mandeep Kaur-wife towards him had been harsh and cruel; and (ii) that Mandeep Kaur is suffering from HIV virus which is an incurable disease. 11. The evidence led by Dharminder Singh consisted of his own deposition as PW1, statement of PW2 Dr. Karamjit Singh who proved Ex.P2 medical report of respondent Mandeep Kaur, vide which he confirmed that she was suffering from HIV virus; testimony of PW3 Gurmukh Singh, his paternal uncle and PW4 Rajwinder Singh, his brother, who both corroborated his version regarding behaviour and conduct of Mandeep Kaur as well as the fact that Mandeep Kaur was suffering from dreaded disease HIV virus. 12. It was argued on behalf of appellant Mandeep Kaur that her husband Dharminder Singh was only bent upon to get rid of her. PW3 Gurmukh Singh was his real paternal uncle and PW4 Rajwinder Singh was his brother, who naturally being interested witnesses had supported his allegations. No independent/neutral witness could be examined by him to prove that Mandeep Kaur had misbehaved with him or his family members or had ever refused to perform household chores etc. The instant petition was filed only as a counter blast to the litigation initiated by the appellant. Learned counsel contended that ever since the appellant had been turned out of the matrimonial home she had been making every effort to reconcile the disputes. She had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and had also filed a petition claiming maintenance from her husband. A criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered on her complaint to the police as Dharminder Singh and his family members had been ill treating her because she was unable to fulfill their demand for more dowry. Her maternal uncle RW2 Baldev Singh and brother RW3 Vikramjit Singh unequivocally deposed that the dispute which led to marital discord between the parties was demand of dowry by Dharminder Singh which could not be satisfied. 13. Her maternal uncle RW2 Baldev Singh and brother RW3 Vikramjit Singh unequivocally deposed that the dispute which led to marital discord between the parties was demand of dowry by Dharminder Singh which could not be satisfied. 13. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, we find hardly any force in them. The inconsistency in the pleadings and the evidence led by Mandeep Kaur by itself is sufficient to strengthen the allegation of Dharminder Singh that she was not only suffering from the dreaded disease HIV virus but her behaviour and conduct towards him and his family was also not good. Importantly, in her pleadings, she admitted the ailment from which she was suffering and to explain its cause she levelled a counter allegation on Dharminder Singh that he was earlier working as a Truck driver with a transport company and often remained out of the house and since he got infected of HIV virus, he transmitted the same to her also. It was also her allegation that she and her parents had requested Dharminder Singh several times to undergo the test to know his physical position but he outrightly refused to do so. On the contrary, when she stepped into the witness box, she altogether denied that she was suffering from HIV virus. Altering her stand altogether, she alleged that her husband Dharminder Singh had manipulated the medical documents. Her brother RW3 Bikramjit Singh also denied that she was a patient of HIV virus. 14. The medical record produced by Dharminder Singh showing that Mandeep Kaur is suffering from HIV virus was not of one doctor/ hospital. Ex.P1 was the report of Bhandari Hospital, Amritsar where Mandeep Kaur remained hospitalized w.e.f. 23.09.2004 to 27.09.2004. In the notes, the doctor had mentioned that the husband was not accompanying the patient and she was brought by her parents and further that post delivery it has been detected that she is HIV positive. Underneath the noting of the doctor is the signature of Bikramjit Singh, brother of Mandeep Kaur. Ex.P2 is the report dated 09.09.2004 prepared and proved by PW2 Dr. Karamjit Singh Gill, Pathologist at Nijjar Lab and Diagnostic Centre. The test undergone by Mandeep Kaur showed her HIV positive. PW2 Dr. Karamjit Singh Gill deposed that “in such kind of reports, the chance of mistake is 0.001%”. Ex.P2 is the report dated 09.09.2004 prepared and proved by PW2 Dr. Karamjit Singh Gill, Pathologist at Nijjar Lab and Diagnostic Centre. The test undergone by Mandeep Kaur showed her HIV positive. PW2 Dr. Karamjit Singh Gill deposed that “in such kind of reports, the chance of mistake is 0.001%”. To the same effect is the report of Rasila Charitable Hospital Ex.P3 dated 07.09.2004. Hence, it was not once but thrice and by three different laboratories that the report of the required test proved that Mandeep Kaur was HIV positive. 15. From the medical record, which remained unimpeached/ unrebutted, it stands established that Mandeep Kaur was suffering from HIV virus. In addition to the said evidence was the admission of Mandeep Kaur in her pleadings. Needless to say that admission was the best evidence. 16. The question which now crops up relates to the source from which Mandeep Kaur caught the infection. She alleged in her pleadings that the infection was transmitted to her by her husband who was working as a truck driver and used to remain out of the house for many days. However, not an iota of evidence was produced by Mandeep Kaur to substantiate her counter allegation. So much so that she neither reiterated the allegation on oath when she appeared in the witness box nor she produced any evidence to prove that at any point of time Dharminder Singh was employed as a driver in a transport company. In absence of required evidence, it cannot just by imagination be said that Mandeep Kaur got infected of the ailment from her husband. In fact, her denial of the ailment during her deposition after having admitted the same in her pleadings proved that the cause of ailment was not her husband. 17. When it stood confirmed that Mandeep Kaur was suffering from HIV virus and she levelled false allegation that the infection was transmitted to her by her husband undoubtedly amounted to cruelty towards the husband. Her attempt to conceal her ailment from the husband was also an act of cruelty. The conduct exhibited by her left no choice than to accept that the other allegations also of Dharminder Singh that from the very beginning of marriage her behaviour towards him and his family members had been harsh and torturous, were true. Her attempt to conceal her ailment from the husband was also an act of cruelty. The conduct exhibited by her left no choice than to accept that the other allegations also of Dharminder Singh that from the very beginning of marriage her behaviour towards him and his family members had been harsh and torturous, were true. In addition to the above, having proved that Mandeep Kaur was suffering from HIV positive which was an incurable and communicable disease, Dharminder Singh-husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage on that ground as well. 18. In the above premises, the findings of learned trial court call for no intervention. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed. -----------------------